FCC ok's social media reporting bureau start-up

[maz]

Free speech on the internet will now be tied to your job search and guess who's involved  :x

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387315,00.asp

We've all heard it a thousand times: be careful what you post on Facebook; it could come back to haunt you. Now Social Intelligence Corp., a startup that does background checks for companies via social media, has been given the go-ahead by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which last week concluded that the year-old company operates within the boundaries of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

So about that old bleary-eyed picture of you doing a keg stand flipping your middle finger to the camera that your college roommate posted? Maybe you begged him to delete it. Maybe the potentially damning photo was removed from Facebook. Maybe you've forgotten about it. But as Forbes reports, Social Intelligence Corp.'s memory isn't exactly short term. If the company sees some dirt on you pop up on Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr or in the personals section of Craigslist, the company stores it in your file, where it will remain, ready to ruin potential job prospects for seven years. It will continue to build that file, too.

"We store records for up to seven years as long as those records haven't been disputed," Social Intelligence's chief operating officer Geoffrey Andrews told Forbes. "If a record is disputed and changed then we delete the disputed record and store the new record when appropriate."

Applicants have to sign a form that grants Social Intelligence permission to run background checks, and the company must inform an applicant if it has found a tidbit that has prevented the person from landing a job.

Forbes got its hands on a few reports Social Intelligence has made for reporters. One job applicant was indicated to be a racist for joining a Facebook group called "I shouldn't have to press 1 for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language." In another case, an applicant had a photo on a social media profile featuring "multiple guns and a sword." Of course the job-seeker could simply delete the photo or leave the group, but considering Social Intelligence keeps the information for seven years, it might not make a difference.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... google.com

This post is going to be a harsh read, but remember, the subject, Max Drucker, personally profits off of YOUR personal information and there is virtually no oversight of what his company does. He claims his company is a "consumer reporting agency", but their trade is expression and speech, not finance.

This is quite different from, say, FICO, or Equifax, who deal with financial information, have statutory duties to you, and comply with them for the most part. For example, you will not see the Scrub pursuing the CEO of TransUnion in this fashion, mainly because the Scrub recognizes that these folks are simply doing what they can with a broken system.

Social Intelligence Corporation, if allowed to continue acting as they have, will have a chilling effect on free speech over the internet. Once your cousin loses out on a good paying job simply because he was pictured online 5 years ago with a beer and Social Intelligence Corporation happened to include it in their report, you will hold your tongue online. What awaits the internet then?

The Scrub's executive summary, based solely on what the information provided herein exhibits:

1. Mr. Drucker's political beliefs:

He is a political liberal, but is not wedded to the classical liberal notion of privacy rights when such ideas stand between himself and a pile of money he wishes to acquire.

2. Mr. Drucker's religious beliefs:

He is Jewish, and a supporter of the State of Israel.

3. Mr. Drucker's career:

He has the magical, "doors open automatically" and "venture capital appears out of nowhere" background of either someone who is politically connected or an intelligence asset...possibly both.

4. Mr. Drucker's publicly known financial situation:

He likely has a personal net worth well into the multi-million dollar range, given his home value. The bulk of his wealth probably came from the ChoicePoint buy-out.

5. Mr. Drucker's known associates:

We found all sorts of pictures of him, his family, his friends, possible co-workers, even a picture of the contractor he hired to renovate his house in 2004. As indicated earlier, if the Scrub wanted to, he could spend the time figuring out who everybody was.

6. Mr. Drucker's interests:

We found personal statements made by him a decade ago indicating his interests. We also found pictures of him attending events that would indicate his political interests...not to mention the public campaign contributions that label him a typical mainstream, left-leaning Democrat (with a dose of blatant hypocrisy when it comes to privacy rights, but the Scrub digresses).

http://creditreportscrub.blogspot.com/2011/06/social-intelligence-corporation-is.html

The Scrub came across a nice little story about how a company called Social Intelligence Corporation is being hired to research your every move online:

The Federal Trade Commission has approved a controversial firm which scours social media sites to check on job applicants...

The Washington-based commission has ruled the firm, Social Intelligence Corporation, complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act - even though it keeps the results of its searches on file for seven years.

It raises the frightening prospect of any social media posting, even it's years old or was meant as a joke, being used in background checks.

Applicants who use online pseudonyms aren't safe, either - the firm uses special software to link those nicknames with real, offline names known to employers.

One applicant found himself out of the running for a job after being branded racist because he once joined a Facebook group called 'I shouldn't have to press one for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language.'

Yeah, that doesn't sound like anything the Fair Credit Reporting Act was intended to protect. Actually, the website for Social Intelligence Corporation makes a big deal about how employers are already using Google to search for information about candidates:

Employers need to Google job candidates to protect themselves from litigation over negligent hires, but doing so leaves employers unprotected from discrimination charges.

Q. Does Social Intelligence store information about job applicants that can potentially be used against them on future job hunts?

A. No. Data is archived purely for compliance reasons and not used for any other purposes. This is to provide a verifiable chain-of-custody in case the information is ever needed for legal reasons. Archived data is never used for new screens.

As per our policies and obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the only information we collect on job applicants is employer defined criteria that is legally allowable in the hiring process. Examples of this include racist remarks, sexually explicit photos or videos, or illegal activity such as drug use.

We are not building a "database" on individuals that will be evaluated each time they apply for a job and potentially could be used adversely even if they have cleaned up their profiles. It is important for job applicants to understand we are not storing their historical information to be used against them the next time they apply for a job.

The Scrub believes zero percent of their bullshit about "not building a database" to be used in future reports. Why?

1. The information contained therein is highly desirable and many organizations would pay dearly for archived bits of information about certain individuals.

2. Archival information would assist Social Intelligence Corporation in future activities, such as recalling old data to help track down a new target.

3. This information will be used to trace individuals, making it highly improbable that one could avoid having their past statements, opinions, pictures, etc. come back to haunt them.

Of course, please note that there appears to be no way for you to request any copies of reports from them for free...you know, one of those things the FCRA Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act demands (sorry about that...brain fart...FACTA amended the FCRA to require these disclosures...a minor technicality but it does not render Social Intelligence Corporation immune from those requirements). The Scrub was going to contact them directly and ask for a link to their form for requesting one, but to contact them you have to provide your full name, title, company, and email address. Fuck that.

Never mind all that, though, because they're also offering to help your employer spy on you in real time.

The Consumerist mentions some of the most obvious concerns that this company's very existence presents:

Another profile was flagged for having racist tendencies for clicking "Like" on a Facebook group called, "I shouldn't have to press 1 for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language."

So many things wrong here I don't even know where to begin...

* How do they know they have the right "you?" The profile on "John Smith" has got to be horrendous.
* Can you now sabotage someone's job prospects by creating a fake profile of them filled with racist, homophobic and violent imagery?
* Considering how hard it is to fix an error on your credit report, how hard will it be to fix an error on your social media report?

So what type of stuff are they claiming to be interested in? David Scott at IT Knowledge Exchange mentions the following:

(CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation Max Drucker) does say that employers are primarily interested in the following categories for screening applicants:

* Racist remarks

* Clearly illegal activity such as drug use

* Sexually explicit photos and videos

* Flagrant displays of weapons or bombs

In other words, this is political correctness merged with nanny-state-ism.

Put simply, your private thoughts and opinions, expressed publicly but perhaps anonymously or under a pseudonym, are now to be tracked, measured and evaluated by employers. Once that is done, you are stuck with them forever.

But no worry. Mr. Drucker says we're really the good guys.

Consider the Scrub unim-fucking-pressed.

Think about how silly this is.

Who decides something is racist? What standards are used? Does the ethnicity of the speaker come into play? Who makes that decision?

What gives Social Intelligence Corporation the right to determine what is "clearly illegal"? Have they been deputized? Are they elected judges? Are they a permanently empaneled jury?

What constitutes "sexually explicit"? Do we rely on religious texts? Potter Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it" standard? Hugh Hefner's opinion? What if sexual mores change over time? At one point, wearing a short skirt was sexually explicit. How short is too short?

What qualifies as a weapon? The Scrub was once stabbed in the foot with a fork (don't ask). Does that count? What is the delineation for "flagrantly" displaying one? Does "flagrantly" involve holding a cocked pistol sideways? What if someone flagrantly displayed a fork?

The Scrub would like to point out that, in his opinion, elitists like the CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation, Max Drucker, enjoy doing shit like this to other people but probably don't like having it done to themselves.

Therefore, allow the Scrub to return the favor to Mr. Drucker on your behalf. For free. In a post tomorrow.

And ho boy, it will be epic.

[abduLMaria]

Social Intelligence Corporation
Max Drucker
735 State Street, Suite 600
Santa Barbara, CA 93101

(888) 748-3281

[maz]

Hi abduLMaria, do you think that they are just floating this story to scare people into shutting up about what the Jews have done with the economy and the wars? I almost look at it this way.

It's either that or I have another theory that the internet censors are just letting people mouth off on YouTube and Facebook and then they can come back and use what you said against you. Surely you've noticed that YouTube and Facebook have gotten fairly lenient with what is being said lately, right?