|
|
|||||
Promiscuous online culture and the vetting processSocial networks have forever changed hiring and background checksSocial networks, and the big data to analyze them, will forever change how we vet candidates, whether for security clearance, employment, or political office. Technology can help employers check candidates' backgrounds, monitor their behavior once hired, and protect their online reputations. But using the social tracks we share -- and what we omit -- has important ethical and legal consequences.
This changes the vetting process. What once took days of phone calls and pages of forms can be done with a few clicks — whether you're a government, an employer, a reporter, or a terrorist cell. Now that the Library of Congress is archiving every Tweet, ever, your past is a matter of permanent public record. The state of national security clearanceIn the U.S. government, candidates for national security positions must complete Standard Form 86 (SF-86). It collects a wide range of information, and it's the starting point for an investigation into your background. A public online life won't replace a questionnaire entirely. But doing some basic analysis of an applicant's social network can pre-populate much of the form. How much of your digital persona should be considered in an investigation? And how will processes like those surrounding SF-86 change in a world where applicants' lives are lived in public, online? One hint at what the vetting of candidates in a connected world might look like is the Obama campaign's questionnaire required of all political appointees. In addition to more traditional background questions, it asks for:
Why we screen applicantsEach of us has plenty of reasons to check someone's background before entrusting them with important matters or our endorsements:
Peer-reviewed identity in the era of open social graphs is a game changer. Consider, for example, the work involved in creating a false identity today: Photoshopping childhood pictures, friending complete strangers, maintaining multiple distinct Twitter feeds, and checking in from several cities. It's enough to make Bond retire. What assisted clearance would look likeBackground clearance systems might be used at all stages of the employment process: screening applicants at the outset to speed the discovery process and find inconsistencies; tracking employees to decide whether clearance should be revoked; and protecting reputation by flagging and mitigating risky online relationships or disclosures. The ethical implicationsHiring is heavily regulated to ensure fair, equitable consideration of candidates. For example, if credit bureau derogatory data is used to disqualify a candidate, this must be revealed to the job seeker so it can be disputed. A similar model might be used for employment decisions based on publicly available social network data (e.g., statements by someone with the same name, yet a different person). If employers rely on social networks, they may be creating processes that disadvantage the part of the population that isn't using social media. In other words, you can't discriminate against someone just because they're off the grid. A life lived in public changes the law, too. Onus probandi — the burden of proof — is the foundation of our legal system. In criminal proceedings, the burden is on the accuser, who must demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For civil cases, the test is less rigorous. But in a recorded, shared world, the absence of records may be enough to sway a jury reared on Facebook or to throw suspicion on someone. In the court of public opinion, we're increasingly expected to live our lives in public, and being too private is a slippery slope toward an admission of guilt. When records are abundant and analysis is cheap, the line between a background check and a replay of our lives will be blurry at best. As that happens, we need to establish ethical and legal guidelines for dealing with the change. Note: The upcoming Gov 2.0 Expo will include a session that expands on many of the topics raised in this post.
|
|||||
© 2012, O'Reilly Media, Inc. (707) 827-7019(800) 889-8969 All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on oreilly.com are the property of their respective owners. |
|||||
Comments: 4
Gal Shpantzer [29 April 2010 07:50 AM]
Excellent post. What is the relevance of information we divulge about ourselves, voluntarily or otherwise (Facebook privacy changes, Google Buzz...) For some helpful links on how the government perceives personnel security and actual appeals cases where people got rejected for a clearance, see article here at CSO Online:
http://blogs.csoonline.com/1200/lawyers_guns_and_money_a_musical_infosec_cautionary_tale
Theodor Adorno [29 April 2010 07:57 AM]
Screening applicants by researching their social networking content and associations, while also loudly advertising this practice through media, is a form of "sensitivity training" (developed in the Soviet Union and practiced in the USA as "political correctness"). This communicates to the applicant certain behavioral norms that they must comply with in order to be "successful" in today world. While some may not have an issue with behavioral controls, before discarding the analysis they should ask themselves who are guiding these social norms and to what ends? Is a mono-culture, which is obvious conclusion of such a system, really culture at all, or one that anyone here would like to live in?
Mardi [ 2 May 2010 02:09 AM]
This is yet, one more reason to go into business for yourself! Before you know it people will be like walking zombies afraid to step out of the norm in fear of ruining ones career. Discrimination will be an art form when it's all said and done. So sad!!! http://livewealthyonline.blogspot.com/
Pie [17 June 2010 10:59 AM]
Alistair, great chatting at the E 2.0 conference. I have a few thoughts on this article.
- Dig into the stats, less than half of American adults have MySpace or FB accounts, and only 16% update them at least once a day. I have many friends that barely get there once a month. Existence does not equal accuracy or completeness. Don't use the 18-34 demographic to skew things.
- The Career search doesn't reveal what percent found the people they were looking for in those searches. The point is still important though, separating work from personal is now takes effort.
- When you get outside of the tech industry, the lack of a public profile is not automatically considered hiding.
I will finish by saying that I do think that the trend is heading in the direction of the world you are describing. I just don't believe that we are as far along as you say.
-Pie