FACEBOOK AT WORK

Facebook and the Law: The NLRB Got It Right
By Suzanne Lucas | February 10, 2011

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a press release about the much talked about Facebook Case.  The press release states:

    Under the terms of the settlement approved today by Hartford Regional Director Jonathan Kreisberg, the company agreed to revise its overly-broad rules to ensure that they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that they would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions.  (Emphasis is mine.)

You know what this is?  Nothing new and nothing exciting.  This is right in line with previous decisions regarding the rights of employee to talk about their salaries, hours and working conditions.  It makes perfect sense to consider Facebook and other social media as talking.  Because that is precisely what it is.

Now, this does not mean that the internet becomes a free-for-all.  If you could be fired for talking about it before, you can still be fired now for posting about it.  (And remember this is a union case, and doesn’t necessarily apply to the majority of American workers.)

This will not be the last we hear of Facebook and the law.  Other Facebook related cases are pending. You would be smart to be cautious about what you say and post on the internet, because unless you are saying something that is explicitly protected, your boss can still fire you.

UPDATE:  I got an e-mail from Nancy Cleeland, NLRB’s Director of Public Affairs.  She gave me permission to post her e-mail for further clarification:

    Thanks for your post on the Facebook settlement, which someone just forwarded to me. I just wanted to point out that even though the employee was represented by a union, our concerns related to the company’s social media policies and her postings were not union-related and would apply to any private-sector workplace that is under the NLRB’s jurisdiction.

So, this is farther reaching than I originally said.  I’ll be keeping my eye on any Facebook (and other social media) cases, and now I have a contact at the NLRB.

MY THOUGHTS

this is not local news and i have not heard of any local case like this one.  but i'm pretty sure this subject has caused companies (and individuals) headaches.  a lot of people are not mature enough to handle the freedom. 

i had a short project with a company whose employees are spending so much time on FB and youtube and all those internet sites.  we had to hire someone to block certain sites.  of course it caused some uproar. and i did not totally agree with the way it was handled. but it had to be done.

i think companies should immediately draw up internal policies on social networking while at work.  don't wait for it to fester. and come-up with some way for people to still do social networking during break time.  a kiosk would work.

SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES FOR PARENTS

Social Networks For Parents: Some of the best
January 21, 2011 | Debbie Turner

The world of social networking is increasingly commonplace and although it has great benefits it’s fair to say some negative points have also been made. For example recently we were told how it’s now natural for many parents and their teens to extend their relationship on Facebook and it can be a valuable line of communication.

Earlier today though, we also told of a Facebook scam that targets children. As a parent, it can sometimes seem like a minefield to negotiate the right path to bring up our children but online resources can be extremely useful and there are some great social networks, specifically for parents. Sarah Kessler over on Mashable has been doing some research into parenting social networks and has 6 suggestions of valuable sites.

It’s fair to say that no matter how good the advice, a good site should also have an active community and Cafémom  received particular praise for this. Users can make journal entries and blog posts and the discussion isn’t always based around parenting but forums cover other topics too. You can also introduce yourself to other moms and of course find the usual advice on potty training, relationships, baby names and much, much more.

For those who wonder where the parenting sites are that don’t revolve around moms you might like Minti, which has a vast amount of information but not so much in the way of an active community. However there’s plenty of archived advice from other parents and users are encouraged to write blog posts. Take a look at the Mashable link above to see all the other ideas suggested.

You may also be interested in an article on The Merrimack Journal by Wendy Thomas that tells of one parent group that uses Facebook as a tool to provide local parents with information, advice and resources in an attempt to assist them to be a positive influence for their kids.

Have you tried any of the Mashable suggestions for social networks for parents or have you any others that you’d like to suggest to our readers? Why not send us your comments to let us know.

MY THOUGHTS

moms, check out the Cafemom site. don't bother about Minti. not available in our country.

HOW SECURED IS FACEBOOK

Facebook defends security strategy
Shy social network responds to criticism
By John Leyden • Get more from this author
Posted in Malware, 21st January 2011 16:01 GMT

Analysis Facebook has defended its record in thwarting rogue applications and other security in the face of criticism from security firms that it ought to adopt tighter application controls.

The dominant social network disputes findings from a threat report by UK-based net security firm Sophos, released earlier this week, that spam, malware and other attacks have become more effective against Facebook users over the last year.

Facebook reckons the opposite is true while disputing the methodology adopted by Sophos which it said looked, for example, at the volume of spam sent to Facebook users instead of the volume that reached their in-boxes.

Facebook said: "If your spam filter catches all the spam, does it matter that your filter caught 10 per cent more?"

The social networking site reckons less than three per cent of communications on Facebook are spam, compared to industry estimates that email spam makes up 90 per cent of all electronic messages. The implication is that Sophos is focusing on the wrong problem.

Unfriending rogues

Survey scams have become an almost daily occurrence on Facebook over recent months. Typically they use the lure of an application that a potential victim's friend has been tricked into installing, such as a 'Dislike' button or a link to shocking (invariably bogus) news about a celebrity.

Instead of getting the promised content, victims are invited to navigate their way through a thicket of time-wasting surveys. Scammers earn a kick-back for each victim as affiliates of unethical marketing firms.

More ambitious (and lucrative) scams attempt to trick victims into supplying their mobile number, before signing up to a premium rate text messaging service of questionable utility.

The scams take advantage of human stupidity rather than web security vulnerabilities. Both Sophos and Facebook agree that user education is part of the solution, but the two are split on whether Facebook itself could do more to tighten up its controls on how applications are released onto its platform.

In a statement responding to Sophos' report, Facebook said it has plenty of controls already that limit access to information.

    We have built extensive controls into the product, so that now when you add an application it only gets access to very limited data and the user must approve each additional type of data (so we do more than anyone else to educate users about passage of data, and force disclosure and user consent for each category beyond the basics).

    We have a dedicated team that does robust review of all third party applications, using a risk based approach. So, that means that we first look at velocity/number of users/types of data shared, and prioritise. This ensures that the team is focused on addressing the biggest risks, rather than just doing a cursory review at the time that an app is first launched.

    We make sure that we act swiftly to remove/sanction potentially bad applications before they gain access to data, and involve law enforcement and file civil actions if there is a problem.

Down with this sort of thing

Facebook said it is constantly improving the level of account protection offered to users, citing its introduction of one-time passwords back in October 2010, a development designed to make it safer for users to use public computers to access the service.

The social network goes on to list its user education programmes, which are geared to improving the security awareness levels of users.

    These initiatives include updating the 3.6 million people who have liked the Facebook Security Page, hundreds of thousands of which have taken our "Stop. Think. Connect." quiz on the Page, which we developed with National Cyber Security Alliance and the Anti-Phishing Working Group; as well as the education we do through the product, for example, when we detect that an account is compromised by phishing or malware, we put the owner through a remediation/education process that includes a free McAfee virus scan.

    When a person clicks on a link that we can't verify, or that we think might be suspicious, we pop an interstitial warning.

We put these points to Sophos, which said it stood by the main findings of its original report, and argued that the social network could and should do more to improve the security of its users.

"I definitely feel that Facebook could be doing more to both better secure their users, and to ensure that privacy is treated as a higher priority," Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, told El Reg.

Facebook may talk a good game but a quick search (viewable only if logged into Facebook and safe providing you don't click on the links) shows hundreds of victims have installed a rogue app that falsely promises the ability to "see who has viewed your profile".

Facebook ought to have someone searching for such scams and stamping them out, something that isn't happening as yet. "Often I see these scams spreading for days on end, with no obvious action taken by Facebook," Cluley said.
Careful now

According to Sophos, the social network could employ a round-the-clock security response team. Some have suggested Apple-style pre-approval of apps would drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the volume of crud circulating on Facebook. However, Cluley said such an approach was hard to apply to Facebook's platform.

"Pre-approval of apps is tricky, because they are web-based and contain content that is not hosted on Facebook's own servers," Cluley explained. "In other words, the bad guys could change it any time - turning a good app into a rogue one."

What might work better is some form of white-listing or restricting the ability to access sensitive data to already trusted developers, Cluley explained.

"Each app could be submitted for profiling to Facebook, who would create a matrix of what data it requested to access from the user, and which webpages it uses content from. If these changed at any point then the app would no longer be approved, and be sent back to Facebook's sinbin team for checking.

"Better than that would be for Facebook to only allow apps that came from approved developers to access sensitive information or post to users' walls."

Cluley said Facebook introduced an optional app verification program in November 2008, only to quietly kill it off a year later.

Facebook ought to consider reviving the program, said Cluley. "If developers had to pay to become official developers for the Facebook platform, and if not being an official developer meant you weren't able to hit Facebook users, then we'd see an instant dramatic drop in the attacks."

Sophos suggested that Facebook ought to be more proactive in using its security page as an early warning system on scams, as part of a broader program targeted at curtailing rogue apps and other security threats.

"There's a sliding scale of things that Facebook could do to counter the problem of rogue apps - ranging from faster response to stricter conditions about who and who can't write Facebook applications," Cluley concluded. "What's clear is that their current approach isn't working." ®

MY THOUGHTS

we have a choice, as always. if we're so heated up about our security and privacy there are, at least, 2 things we can do. one is to stop using facebook altogether.or be a responsible user.

WILL YOU BLAME SOCIAL NETWORKING?

blame social networking
By Loretta Park
Standard-Examiner Davis Bureau
Last updated
Saturday, January 22, 2011 - 8:26pm

http://www.standard.net/topics/schools/2011/01/22/school-fights-more-violent-some-blame-social-networking

School officials and police officers are concerned that fights in schools are becoming more aggressive and violent, and they believe e-mail, texts and social networking are at the root of that escalation.

Suzanne Buchanne, director of the at-risk population with Davis School District, said, "I'm seeing more assertive/aggressive behavior."

Although she could not pinpoint a specific reason why, Buchanne thinks e-mail, texts and social networking are playing a huge role.

In the past, when several students were mad at each other, they would go to class or go home and time would allow tempers and feelings to cool down, she said.

Now, students text and e-mail each other, as well as post remarks on social networking sites, such as Twitter, Facebook and MySpace, Buchanne said.

"Now, I've got all my buddies involved; and it's not just boys doing this either," she said.

Recently, an incident erupted at a Davis County high school in which social networking was believed to have played a role. A 19-year-old is still in an area hospital with a brain injury following the fight at Viewmont High School.

"He has a significant head injury," said Bountiful Police Chief Tom Ross.

Ross said the fight that landed Spencer Spilman in a hospital happened on Jan. 10 in the school's parking lot during school hours.

"Fights are not so shocking," Ross said. "But what is (shocking) is how quickly, in a short period of time, we had kids gathered in one place for a fight."

He blames social media and texting.

Students from Woods Cross and Bountiful high schools have been implicated in the fight.

News of fight

News that a fight would be taking place traveled in a matter of seconds, bringing students from neighboring cities to the parking lot, officials said. Police spent the next 48 hours, working overtime, investigating how many students were involved.

Three juveniles are facing aggravated assault charges, which in an adult court could be a second-degree felony. Also, at least six more students could be charged with misdemeanor offenses, such as disorderly conduct or fighting, Ross said.

But the aggressiveness and intensity of that fight, as well as another one earlier in January after a basketball game between Viewmont and Davis high schools, has officials concerned.

Consequences

Parents need to talk to their teenagers about the consequences of getting involved in fights, Buchanne said. It's not just bruises or black eyes, that will heal in a few days.

Instead, a student can find herself/himself without a school to attend, she said.

"They just don't think what the long-term consequences are," Buchanne said.

Students involved in fighting, as well as bringing weapons to a school, can be expelled for up to a year. If the incident is serious enough, the student could be expelled from every school in Davis School District, Buchanne said.

"And other districts can uphold that expulsion," Buchanne said. "I don't think people realize that. We don't have to offer them any services."

Principal Chris Keime at Fairfield Junior High School in Kaysville said students are taught at the beginning of the year how to deal with conflicts maturely and what the district's safe school policy is.

But social networks and electronics are making it difficult for students to deal with disagreements, he said.

"It's hard for kids, especially when their honor has been hurt," Keime said.

But at least statistically, kids might be getting the message.

Overall, fights or violent acts in schools are not increasing, but instead decreasing, not only in Davis School District, but statewide and nationally.

Decreases

According to a 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, in 2003, 9.2 percent of ninth-grade to 12th-grade students, nationwide, reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. In 2007, that percentage decreased to 7.8 and decreased again in 2009 to 7.7 percent.

In Utah, 7.3 percent of ninth-grade to 12th-grade students in 2003 reported being injured or threatened with a weapon on school property, according to the report. In 2007, that percentage increased to 11.4, but then dropped in 2009 to 7.7 percent.

Some of that decrease statistically could be attributed to the programs schools are putting in place.

Parents at North Layton Junior High volunteer to patrol the hallways during the lunch hour, which helps keep the peace, said Assistant Principal James Gordon.

Students are also told if there is a conflict or they feel afraid, they can find an adult -- a teacher or administrator -- who can help them get through the conflict.

Conflict resolution

Overall, most students are good kids; but several weeks ago friction between two North Layton students escalated due to social networking and texting, and there was a fight, he said.

Gordon said parents should teach their children how to resolve conflicts without using technology. One way is to use appropriate behavior when they disagree with someone else.

He said teenagers are very much aware of current events and see how adults handle disagreements.

"They can see there are very clear disagreements between Democrats and Republicans," Gordon said. "I agree with President (Barack) Obama that we should sit down at the table and talk about disagreements and what is the actual conflict."

Also, parents need to know what students are watching, not only on TV, but what they are seeing on the computer, what they are reading in books and who they are communicating with, Gordon said.

"I really feel technology is fast outpacing our students' judgement and they're dealing with adult issues," Gordon said.

Technology allows anyone, including teenagers, to hide behind a screen and become a different person, he said.

"What is written shocks not only the parents, but me," said Gordon, who has been an educator for 17 years.

MY THOUGHTS

i wonder if the same is happening here.  and i really don't think we should blame social networking sites.  we cannot stop the world from evolving.  and we should not stop trying to cope with these changes called 'development'. 

i know, it's a lot simpler for moms and dads and teachers when technology was not this advanced.  you tell your kid he/she is grounded and that's it. nowadays, you tell them they are grounded and you confiscate the computer and the cellphone,too.

this is why strong values have to be inculcated.  at home and in school.  strong values that are not just taught but exemplified.  values that will arm us and the kids against the evils of technology.

come to think of it, technology is not evil.  we are the ones who make it so.

NEW LAW IN GERMANY TO STOP CHECKING FACEBOOK

New Law to Stop Companies from Checking Facebook Pages in Germany

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,713240,00.html

Good news for jobseekers who like to brag about their drinking exploits on Facebook: A new law in Germany will stop bosses from checking out potential hires on social networking sites. They will, however, still be allowed to google applicants.

Lying about qualifications. Alcohol and drug use. Racist comments. These are just some of the reasons why potential bosses reject job applicants after looking at their Facebook profiles.

According to a 2009 survey commissioned by the website CareerBuilder, some 45 percent of employers use social networking sites to research job candidates. And some 35 percent of those employers had rejected candidates based on what they found there, such as inappropriate photos, insulting comments about previous employers or boasts about their drug use.

But those Facebook users hoping to apply for a job in Germany should pause for a moment before they hit the "deactivate account" button. The government has drafted a new law which will prevent employers from looking at a job applicant's pages on social networking sites during the hiring process.

According to reports in the Monday editions of the Die Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung newspapers, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière has drafted a new law on data privacy for employees which will radically restrict the information bosses can legally collect. The draft law, which is the result of months of negotiations between the different parties in Germany's coalition government, is set to be approved by the German cabinet on Wednesday, according to the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Although the new law will reportedly prevent potential bosses from checking out a candidate's Facebook page, it will allow them to look at sites that are expressly intended to help people sell themselves to future employers, such as the business-oriented social networking site LinkedIn. Information about the candidate that is generally available on the Internet is also fair game. In other words, employers are allowed to google potential hires. Companies may not be allowed to use information if it is too old or if the candidate has no control over it, however.

Toilets to Be Off-Limits

The draft legislation also covers the issue of companies spying on employees. According to Die Welt, the law will expressly forbid firms from video surveillance of workers in "personal" locations such as bathrooms, changing rooms and break rooms. Video cameras will only be permitted in certain places where they are justified, such as entrance areas, and staff will have to be made aware of their presence.

Similarly, companies will only be able to monitor employees' telephone calls and e-mails under certain conditions, and firms will be obliged to inform their staff about such eavesdropping.

The new law is partially a reaction to a number of recent scandals in Germany involving management spying on staff. In 2008, it was revealed that the discount retail chain Lidl had spied on employees in the toilet and had collected information on their private lives. National railway Deutsche Bahn and telecommunications giant Deutsche Telekom were also involved in cases relating to surveillance of workers.

Online data privacy is increasingly becoming a hot-button issue in Germany. The government is currently also working on legislation to deal with issues relating to Google's Street View service, which is highly controversial in the country because of concerns it could violate individuals' privacy.

dgs

MY THOUGHTS

i think the best way to deal with privacy is to keep it. zip it.  the less private matters you share, the more privacy you keep.  it pays to be discreet and discriminating when sharing.  especially about your woes about other people. go ahead and share the fun times, the good things. the not-so-good should be kept private.  i should remind myself. all the time.

DON'T GET FIRED BECAUSE OF FACEBOOK

Yes, You Should Be Fired For That Facebook Post. (No Matter What the Feds Say Next Week)
By Suzanne Lucas | January 21, 2011

Facebook is a tool used by teenagers to torment each other and for adults to complain about their bosses, right?   Except that your rude commment about your boss or your coworker, or your inapproriate comments about stupid stuff you did could land you on the curb.

Right now the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is preparing to hear a case where an employee was fired after criticizing her boss on Facebook.  (Jon Hyman has a round up of information on this union firing.) But, the NLRB deals largely (although not exclusively) with union employees, who are definitely not “at will” employees, but are under contract.

I still think you should be careful.

I hear the screeching about free speech right now.  Well, yes, you have the right to free speech, but I also believe that companies should have the right to terminate people who use that speech to denigrate the company.  Free speech, not free from consequences speech.  (And remember, it’s only government suppression of speech that is illegal.) Most employees in the United States are at will employees, which means that there is no contract of employment and either party can end it for any or no reason, as long as the reason isn’t an illegal one.  For instance, you can’t fire an employee because she’s pregnant, but you can fire a pregnant employee, as long as the pregnancy isn’t the reason.

So, why am I in favor of companies being able to terminate an employee for online behavior?  (These things, of course, aren’t limited to Facebook.  Myspace, Twitter, and blogs are all good candidates for firing).  Here are 3 Reasons.

   1. Easy firing=easy hiring. I want companies to hire people.  In fact, my fondest wish is that all my readers who are searching for jobs find one this year.  The more restrictions government places on terminating employees, the more hesitant companies are to hire new people.

   2. Bad judgment isn’t limited to online behavior. Companies need employees they can trust to make good decisions.  If you lack the critical thinking skills to say, “Hmmm, if I post that my boss is a jerk, my boss just might find out about it,” then you probably lack the critical thinking skills to do your job.  Yes, people vent.  But the internet is not private.  And anyone who thinks they can trust all their 476 friends to keep something quiet isn’t someone I want on my staff.

   3. Companies should be able to presume loyalty. I know, I know, your company doesn’t care much about your career and they have no problem firing you, so why should you care about them?  Because they pay you to care about them.  In a pre-internet case where Delta airline employee was fired over a letter to the editor, “[t]he court in that case held that there ‘”is an implied duty of loyalty, with regard to public communications, that employees owe to their employers.’ Stating that Mr. Marsh violated this implied duty of loyalty by publicly disparaging Delta, the court found that his termination was just.”  We forbid employees from giving information to the competitor, which would damage the company, so why not forbid employees from posting information that would hurt the company?  The exception to this is when the company is engaging in illegal activity.  Then employees should speak out and should be afforded whistleblower protection.

However, I also think that bosses should stay off their employees’ and candidates’ Facebook pages.  Why?  Because it opens up whole cans of fire-breathing worms.  And, once those cans are open, the worms have no interest in going back in.  Here’s why:

   1. There are things you don’t want to know. Honestly and truly, there are things out there about your employees that you don’t want to know.  Even though you can legally fire people easily, few companies allow you to actually do that.  And there are lots of unemployed lawyers who would be happy to take your employee’s case.

   2. Some information cannot be considered. Yes, you know the gender, age, race, national origin and, frequently, religion and sexual orientation of your employees.  But, you can’t make decisions based on this information, so don’t browse Facebook looking for it.  Wonder if Jim is gay?  What about that candidate?  She looked Jewish.  Hmmmm.  Seriously, even though you wouldn’t make a decision based on protected class information, doesn’t mean you won’t have to defend against it.  If you don’t know, your defense is much easier.

   3. Your employees are not your friends. I know, you’re a great boss and everyone loves you, but remember they love you because you are paying them.  Please keep those worlds separate.  Don’t try to “friend” your employees on Facebook, and don’t follow their personal blogs.  (If they write career based ones, that’s a different story.)  The Evil HR Lady Rule of Work Relationships is that when you are with people from the office you are at the office.  Please don’t turn Facebook into the office.  (And for heaven’s sake, don’t friend one or two members of your staff, but not the rest.  Gah.)

   4. One bad statement or questionable picture does not mean a person is a bad employee. We all make mistakes and things can be taken out of context as well.  You cannot control it if your “friends” post pictures of you from 10 years ago.  Don’t punish your 30 year old employees for something they did at 18.

Right now, I think both employees and employers should use caution when approaching social media at work.  Companies need policies.  And everyone should stop acting like they are in Junior High.  It was bad enough the first time.

MY THOUGHTS

of course a boss and her staff can be friends. they just need to draw clear lines between professional and personal.  it can be tricky. but not impossible. as for FB, i think any attack on any person should not be made public. and yes, i'm all for firing someone who would say something bad about the company.  that's normally in the rules of conduct.