Googling people

[Jonathan Birch]

This relates to the "Ungoogleables" article in Wired News:

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,68998,00.html?tw=rss.TEK

Reading this reminded me of an issue that I've considered previously, that of using Google to find information on people, particularly people you know.

This is something I used to do myself, particularly when I would meet someone new, just as a way of getting to know them and occasionally to get contact information for someone. Later on I reconsidered the practice after running into information on some people that I didn't think I should know.

It strikes me that this is the modern avenue for voyeurism: a person who's good at constructing searches can discover an enormous amount of information about people they're only slightly acquainted to.

So, I don't look people up this way anymore (except occasionally myself), but I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks of this practice.

(BTW - I'm somewhat safe as I apparently share a name with a world-class snooker player and a semi-famous biographer)

[Peter Motyka]

I love using Google to find the skinny on people I know and/or have just met.  For example, I Googled my current supervisor and found that they formerly participated in tournament chess.  Shortly after discovering this, I asked them to a game and they were quite happy with having a coworker to have a game with.  Had I not Google'd them, I'd have never known they were into chess.

To be honest, when I make it into management, you bet your butt I'll be Googling prospective hires.  I'd like to see the questions they've posted to newsgroups, discover any projects they've participated, etc.  I might even find things that would make them a questionable hire, like being a member of NAMBLA.  Or finding out they are incapable of coding basic string concatenation!

If anything, Google has made me more cognizant of things I allow my name to be attached to on the web.  For instance, I'll never be able to revoke some comments I regret posting to Usenet...

[Tyler]

At my previous job I was in charge of hiring people.  I Googled every person that I was considering hiring.

It wasn't so much to find out the bad, but more so just to find out more about them.  Maybe they are into sports, maybe they have some cool academic achievement, and yes, maybe they have been reported for some major felony.  Of course I would never use that info as the end all be all of hiring standards, but it did help me on more than one occasion.

[Bryan]

I myself have randomly googled people just for shits and grins, but like greyblue I stopped when I found something I wasn't sure the person would appreciate me finding.  That being said I have a real problem with any hirer googling a perspective business person.  That in itself could be grounds for a major lawsuit if it could be shown that they simply did it.  It is not in human nature to be objective.  It's like in court when they have something stricken from the record.  You can strike somehting from the record...but you can't strike something from human memory.

[Tyler]

Many employers run background checks on new/prospective hires.  My current landlord ran a background check on me before they would let me lease my apartment.

Anything you can find on Google on someone is something I consider public knowledge.  Employers could also look in the public record to see if anything shady is up with new hires.

I am no lawyer and have little if no law experience, but I highly doubt that googling a prospective hire could be grounds for a major lawsuit.  I'm guessing that the main objection would be invasion of privacy?  I'm not sure if that case could stand up because the "privacy" you're "invading" is information available to ANYONE IN THE WORLD that is on the internet.

To me, googling someone is merely an extension of an employment application/resume.  Those ask for previous jobs, accomplishments, and if you've ever been convicted of a felony.  I can't see how googling someone can be much different than putting that stuff on an application.

[Bryan]

Let's say for example that the information you put on the internet was something you were under the impression was private.  It's not something illegal, or wrong, but maybe it's something someone in the world would have a real problem with.  Let's take for instance..you're a homosexual.  Nothing wrong with it, right? (please don't turn this into that debate, it's just a common example)

All of a sudden a boss does a google on your name and finds you run a website advocating gay rights and finds out you are infact a homosexual.  Now, it is illegal for them not to hire you for this.  However, they can't even ASK this question in an interview.  So, they don't have to let on they know.  


See where I'm going with this?  I personally like to keep my professional life at work and my private life, just that, private.  Maybe there are parts of my private life that I'm not ashamed of being public, but yet it's not something I'd have a water cooler conversation with at work.  It's not a matter that it's public domain knowledge.  

Let's ask you this Tyler, would you hire someone at work if you'd found out they were members of NAMBLA and had a fetish for BDSM snuff films?

[Peter Motyka]

tfizzle wrote: Many employers run background checks on new/prospective hires.  My current landlord ran a background check on me before they would let me lease my apartment.

I agree.  Google (and other search/meta engines) provide employers with a powerful tool to defend themselves against people who flagrantly lie on their resume in order to get a job.  In my experience, candidates frequently "wordsmith" a resume with buzzwords that an employer wants to hear in order to advance through the interview process.

Here is an example of how I'd use it to validate the credentials of a prospective hire.  If a candidate cited experience with PHP, I'd Google for code examples, newsgroup posts, etc to attempt to validate their claim.  If no meaningful results were found, I'd dig deeper in a technical interview to determine what their experience was comprised of.

ModernDayDarwin said: Let's ask you this Tyler, would you hire someone at work if you'd found out they were members of NAMBLA and had a fetish for BDSM snuff films?

Member of NAMBLA in most cases, sure.  This is an organization that is protected by the ACLU.  If I were hiring a boy scout troop leader, I'd most likely rule them out.

BDSM snuff films, no.  I'd consider that person a risk for violence in the work place.  I'd also question the amount of respect they have for others if they enjoyed seeing people brought to this type of submission.  To me this would be a red flag indicating a dangerous person.  Hiring people is an expensive process for a company.  I'd err on the side of caution and look for another candidate that didn't enjoy watching other human beings murdered (even if it is acting).  Next please.

ModernDayDarwin said: Let's say for example that the information you put on the internet was something you were under the impression was private.

Sorry, your mistake.

[Jerry]

What about issues of accuracy?

Anyonw can put any thing they want on the web. Just out of curiosity from this thread I googled my name and it turned up a on strange search engine page with a URL of "www.seeks-fun-and-goodtimes.com". The "funny" part is that it connected my bachelors in nursing to "being a bachelor".  :-P

[Bryan]

pmotyko wrote:
I agree.  Google (and other search/meta engines) provide employers with a powerful tool to defend themselves against people who flagrantly lie on their resume in order to get a job.  In my experience, candidates frequently "wordsmith" a resume with buzzwords that an employer wants to hear in order to advance through the interview process.

Here is an example of how I'd use it to validate the credentials of a prospective hire.  If a candidate cited experience with PHP, I'd Google for code examples, newsgroup posts, etc to attempt to validate their claim.  If no meaningful results were found, I'd dig deeper in a technical interview to determine what their experience was comprised of.

This is why you call former employers, ask for referneces, etc.  You don't go behind their back to find information about them.

pmotyko wrote:
Member of NAMBLA in most cases, sure.  This is an organization that is protected by the ACLU.  If I were hiring a boy scout troop leader, I'd most likely rule them out.

BDSM snuff films, no.  I'd consider that person a risk for violence in the work place.  I'd also question the amount of respect they have for others if they enjoyed seeing people brought to this type of submission.  To me this would be a red flag indicating a dangerous person.  Hiring people is an expensive process for a company.  I'd err on the side of caution and look for another candidate that didn't enjoy watching other human beings murdered (even if it is acting).  Next please.

I'm pretty sure that this is called discrimination and is completely illegal.  If you were to ask this kind of information in an interview you'd be getting served with a subpeonia within the week.  If it could be proved that you had knowledge of this and that's why you didn't hire them, then I'm pretty sure you'd probably lose.

It's none of your business how someone acts in their personal life.  If you gave me two candidates one whom liked getting freaky with farm animals while his wife is video taping it and one that was living the american dream and an upstanding citizen.

I'll take the one that does the better job.  

Infact, I'm pretty sure you were just complaingin in another thread about how everyone at your work place is incompitant except you.    Maybe they were the only upstanding citizens left in this world and your boss was afraid to hire the BDSM fetishist.

pmotyko wrote:
Sorry, your mistake.

Not my mistake, if you googled my name the first thing that comes up is the CAOS forums.  Just because you are a self proclaimed internet god doesn't mean that joe public is.  Remember, joe public is the reason you are employed.

[Bryan]

Jerry wrote:
What about issues of accuracy?

Anyonw can put any thing they want on the web. Just out of curiosity from this thread I googled my name and it turned up a on strange search engine page with a URL of "www.seeks-fun-and-goodtimes.com". The "funny" part is that it connected my bachelors in nursing to "being a bachelor".  :-P

That and it helps your name is snyonomous with the very famous software engineering literary Gerald Weinberg.

of course this brings up another interesting point. What if you happen to google someone's name and you find something that makes you (illegally) not want ot hire them.  Only you realize that there's probably around 10,000 other people with the exact same name and you get the same search results for all 10,000 of them.   to what lengths would you go to (illegally) get information you could use against them.  Would you type in their SSN?  Their location? their first, middle, and last name?  The list goes on an on.

[Peter Motyka]

ModernDayDarwin said:
This is why you call former employers, ask for references, etc. You don't go behind their back to find information about them.

Sure, checking references is one avenue.  I see using Google (or similar tools) as due diligence.

ModernDayDarwin said: I'm pretty sure that this is called discrimination and is completely illegal.

I'll use the trusty Google to look for prior litigation that might support this claim and report my findings...  According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, discrimination falls into the following categories:

Age
Disability
Equal Pay
National Origin
Pregnancy
Race
Religion
Retaliation
Sex
Sexual Harassment

Which one does not hiring someone because of a NAMBLA affiliation fall into?  I'm not trying to be facetious, I'd really like to get to the bottom of this.

ModernDayDarwin said: It's none of your business how someone acts in their personal life. If you gave me two candidates one whom liked getting freaky with farm animals while his wife is video taping it and one that was living the american dream and an upstanding citizen.

Hrrm, I think it is my business.  As a manager, a responsibility one must shoulder is creating an environment that allows employees to perform without threats being imposed by coworkers.

Let’s look at another example.  If I was to discover that a potential hire was a member of an extreme hate group, the KKK for example.  Would I welcome this person into a diverse work place simply because they can perform a job?  I don' think so.  I'd find their affiliation with this organization disruptive to the work place.

BTW, if I found an employee to be participating in â€Ã...“freakinessâ€Ã, with animals, I’d report them to local authorities for mistreatment of animals.  Once they were prosecuted, I’d promptly dismiss them for their involvement in such abhorrent behavior.

ModernDayDarwin said: Infact, I'm pretty sure you were just complaingin in another thread about how everyone at your work place is incompitant except you.

Perhaps you should read my post again.  I was citing a few bad apples in the bunch.  Nowhere did I claim to be the only competent professional in my workplace.
 

ModernDayDarwin said: Just because you are a self proclaimed internet god doesn't mean that joe public is. Remember, joe public is the reason you are employed.

Testy testyâ€Ã,¦
When did I proclaim myself as an "internet god"?  Using the tools available to me to mine the information I want is being resourceful.  Don't be silly.

[Bryan]

I'm a firm believer that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  If someone was a member of the KKK I wouldn't like it, but until it becomes a problem at work..it is infact none of my business.  The equal opportunity laws apply to sex...in all forms.

simply put, it's none of your business.  you seem to be thinking you are doing your employees a favor by "protecting" them from people.  That in and of itself is discrimination.  you have automatically assumed that the mere affiliation with actions that you deem threatening means it will affect your other employees.  Now let me ask you this, is it your decision what's a negative affiliation or do you put it up for a vote on internet bulletin boards?

[Tyler]

My main point is that it's not exactly hidden information.  It's not like you're hiring a private investigator to follow someone around.  All you're doing is finding out information that ANYONE WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION can find out.  As far as I'm concerned this is public knowledge.

[Bryan]

I'm of the opinion that if it's on the internet it's fair game.  Hell i have teased my friends for what I found under their name (though not actually THEM). My point is that if you are googling peoples names to get information and thus judge them for employement.  that's totally not cool!

[Tyler]

Not cool, maybe.

But illegal?