Web Life May Draw Scrutiny

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,886
Location
Alma Illinois
This article stems from a local news story where a 26 year old high school teacher tried to murder his 17 year old girlfriend. He apparently had a double life online.

While the article deals with sexual issues, I think it has broader implications and could affect members of firearm related forums like this one. There have been isolated stories of members being discriminated against at work because of their posts here.

There are many groups with as diverse interests and goals from the Christian Right, to the ChiComs to the Islamofacists who would love to put their own particular brand of controls on the internet.

I would bet that a person's internet idenity will be scrutinized along with everything else when it comes to hiring or maybe even keeping your job.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...81C9A6C35D82FC28862571620053BDF6?OpenDocument
Web life may draw scrutiny
By Jeremy Kohler
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/02/2006


To his softball buddies, Samson R. Shelton liked to project the image of not just a teacher but a small town scamp.

In a profile on the Web, the Freeburg High School teacher described himself as a line-dancing "pimp" with a girl in every port, whose hobbies include prostitutes and pornography.

Whether it was a joke shared among friends or a genuine self-assessment, Shelton's online writing raised questions after his arrest this weekend on charges of attempted murder of a teenage girl from another school.

It was at odds with the earnest, athletic educator he seemed to be in the real world. In clear hindsight, perhaps, the disparity could have been a warning sign.

Until now, schools have been mostly concerned with policing computer usage on campus.

But a veteran educator said Monday that the episode could jar schools to sleuth more into online behavior of teachers.

"I wouldn't hire him," said William Rebore, chairman of the department of educational leadership at St. Louis University and a former superintendent for the Francis Howell and Valley Park school districts.

"If the person said, 'Oh, that's nothing, it's just a joke,' well, professional people don't joke in that manner, especially when it comes to children."

Rebore said he thinks schools will more commonly ask employees to disclose what they are posting on the Internet.

A job application could ask, "Do you have a Web site? Are you featured in any Web site?" Rebore said. "Certainly, if someone were not honest about that, it could be grounds for termination. It wouldn't surprise me if districts started putting that on an application."

Shelton was hardly the first educator whose candid thoughts, intended for a select few, were exposed to a larger audience. A Boston University journalism instructor was fired last year for comments in a chat room about an "incredibly hot" student.

"A woman student in a class ought to have as her sole points of concern understanding the course, assimilating the subject matter, doing well on the exams or essays," said Robert Zelnick, chairman of the journalism program. "She should not have to worry about a teacher thinking she has a terrific bod."

Zelnick said Shelton's postings are worthy of some concern.

"It's interesting to think what you would have done if you had come across those self descriptions if you had run a search," he said. "When you start making those kinds of comments, it should send up something of a warning flag to superiors and others who may be concerned about your conduct."

Freeburg's school superintendent, Andrew W. Lehman, said the district had neither a policy about off-campus computer use nor any method of checking what has been published.

He said he was not sure whether the district could do anything about such writing because of "freedom of speech and those types of things."

Lehman said he could not speculate how he would have reacted if the material had been brought to his attention before Shelton's arrest.

Robert Malito, superintendent of the Parkway schools, said the safety of children should be the district's priority.

Any prospective teacher should be subjected to intense background checks, he said. "We want our parents to feel comfortable when they give us the privilege of taking care of their son or daughter for number of years."

When he was a candidate to run Parkway schools two years ago, "people were Googling me" about his performance running a district outside Chicago, Malito said.

In the wake of Shelton's arrest, many were wondering why a teacher would write in such coarse terms and expect his words to remain private.

A friend, Tim Davis, said the profile and others like it on the softball team were meant to be jokes, not windows on deeper problems. Davis said his own profile listed his hobby as "getting divorced." Another team member claimed to be the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Body by Bacon."

It was a bunch of friends joking around, he said.

Amanda Lenhart, senior research specialist at the Pew Internet and American Life Project, in Washington, said: "There is a real sense that when people interact with digital media that it's private." She said, "It feels private. It's you and the computer."

A school system does not necessarily have a responsibility to know about, or act on, such a posting, she said. "The Internet is a big place."

[email protected] 314-340-8337
 
I don't work in an office or in some kind of IT job but why would you tell anyone that your a member of any forum. The only reason anyone in my company even know I own a firearm is because more than half the people in the company CCW(I don't) and have firearms in their vehicles(I don't)
 
Because sooner or later some lawyer will succeed in making an employer pay damages because they should have known that the person they hired who committed a crime had an alternate identity on the internet. Then questions about your web postings will be put on job applications and making false statements will be grounds for dismissal.

At first it will only apply to people in sensitive positions, teachers and teachers aides, school bus drivers, day care workers, cops, firemen, utility company employees.....I see it spreading to the rest of the workforce not too long after that.

A person who has a presence on porn sites or adult message boards might be a risk for sexual harrassment in the office. A person with a presence on firearms forums might be a risk for workplace violence.

You aren't anonymous here at THR. The IP you posted from is logged every time you post. There is no privacy on the internet. With all of the high profile abductions that have come from people meeting in chat rooms, and the case that prompted this article, it won't be long before your life on the web is your employer's business.

Jeff
 
I'm not arguing your point about the loss of privacy. I'm just saying that giving your boss your screen name is foolish now if your some fedgov ninja then they will do a major background check.


I understand that what I post here isn't private or anonymous. But privacy is dead as far as the govt. goes anyway. My job already to tries to weasel its way into my life. At a bunch of the private communities we work in they wanted me to fill out some form (SS# name Bday address the works) so I could get an ID badge that would give me access without them having to call the resident. I flat out refused. My boss want me to carry around the company noisemaker(Nextel). Once again absolutely not. By the way all nextels after the 530 have GPS and Nextel has great tracking software according to my boss at our last company meeting his brother (who runs a different business) spends all day watching where his guys go on his PC.

The fight for privacy ha already been lost.

MY boss doesn't have time to read reams of google info on the hundreds of John Diaz's out there.

When I go through NICS I have to give mny social and my drivers license number because there is another guy with my name and Birthday who is a felon. It takes an average of an hour and a half for me to go through Nics. There are a lot of people with my name as a matter of fact my father had a guy with his exact name living one block away in the same number house as mine

82 street and 83 same name same number house.
 
Web Life May Draw Scrutiny

Should be:
Your Life May Draw Scrutiny

'cause, contrary to popular belief, your web life is part of your life. It is not a fantasy. It is not an "ether"eal life.

Especially in consideration of the current executive branch of government.
 
I'll guarantee you that even in non-important positions, employers are using Google to learn about prospective employees. I've done it when hiring and I've had things I've said brought up to me in interviews.

I really wish I could make every user here keenly aware of this: The internet is not an anonymous forum. There is so much information about you on the Internet that most of you would be shocked to know what even a fellow THR member could discover about you, let alone someone with even meager resources to investigate.
 
Kodiaz said:
MY boss doesn't have time to read reams of google info on the hundreds of John Diaz's out there.

I bet he has time to look at the 51 John Diaz's who come up on a public records search of Palm Beach County though... have any problem with him taking a look at who you married, who you owe money to, what property you own, how you are registered to vote, etc.?

Edited to add: Think he might be able to narrow that Google search down a bit with any of that information?
 
Bart,
I know you're not an attorney yet, but what do you think the chance is someone will collect damages because an employer should have taken the time to google an applicant before hiring and that google search would have revealed the person talked about committing just such a crime on the internet or show the charactoristics of someone who might and therefore shouldn't have been hired?

What about the chances an insurance company will require an employer to google that person for participation on firearms forums because many of them think that a person who talks about guns and shooting is a risk for workplace violence?

Jeff
 
Bart and Jeff have it nailed.

Unless you are taking exceptional actions to remain anonymous on the internet, you aren't. And even then you probably aren't.
 
Jeff White said:
I know you're not an attorney yet, but what do you think the chance is someone will collect damages because an employer should have taken the time to google an applicant before hiring and that google search would have revealed the person talked about committing just such a crime on the internet or show the characteristics of someone who might and therefore shouldn't have been hired?

I couldn't make any informed comment without doing some research on that specific issue and I am kind of pressed for time now. I can say that there is an entire field of law devoted to "negligent hiring and retention" that generates multiple millions of dollars per year that operates on basically the same assumption - that the employer did not do due dilligence in investigating the background of an employee.

What about the chances an insurance company will require an employer to google that person for participation on firearms forums because many of them think that a person who talks about guns and shooting is a risk for workplace violence?

Again, this would definitely require research to answer and I don't have the time for the research right now; but it is worth remembering that the antis have multiple foundations out there that fund all kinds of anti-gun legislation and legal research. They already have a number of studies out there attempting to scare employers into not allowing CCW out of fear of liability. What you mention would be a logical sequence from that if they haven't pursued it already.
 
For those people who run a personal site they wish to keep (more) private from search engines, it might be a good idea to review the use of robots.txt. See www.robotstxt.org (evidently down), or www.robotstxt.ca.

Has THR developed a policy on search engine privacy? Or people who want to redact ancient posts?
 
It may even be wiser to compartmentalize different areas of your online life. In my case, the username came from my days playing First Person Shooter games, and some of the things I may have posted on related forums would reflect very poorly on me if they were reposted here out of context.

Once something is out on the Internet, it's usually impossible to get rid of it. I don't tie my online and offline personas together - some meatspace friends of mine know both of both my on- and off-line activities, but I've also made a point to ask them never to use my real name/information online.

Information is the new currency, and I like to know who has their fingers in my wallet. :)
 
Well next time you have a repair man at your home or any tradesmen you may want to google them. My current employer and some of the others I have worked for have had excons on the payroll. The market for trades is so tight (lots of reasons) that they will hire anyone now.
 
I've been blessed

with a name that is soooooo common that there are
thousands of people with my name and exact birthday.

my nick name is however easily found by google
(scary) but I never use my nickname on job apps
 
A google search of my name turns up a bunch of stuff for some person with my name that isn't me, and I never use my real name online. Sure someone could track me down if they had the time and desire, but I went through a pretty thorough background check for my current job and nothing came up.

Unfortunately, my name is now on several lists for various certifications and professional memberships so it's probably getting easier to track me down :uhoh:
 
What about the chances an insurance company will require an employer to google that person for participation on firearms forums because many of them think that a person who talks about guns and shooting is a risk for workplace violence?
not to be all nit-picky, but that one there will actually wind up being: "an employer will claim (possibly on advice from an attorney) that for 'insurance purposes' participation in firearms forums may have an impact on whether or not an applicant is hired."

trying hard not to drift the thread too much, suffice it to say, whenever a business or employer comes up with a firearms policy and blames 'insurance', its bogus. in order for it to be legit, the policy held by the business or employer must have specific wording that defines the coverage provided or excludes an exposure as it relates to firearms, or their presence or ownership by employees or customers.

now i'm arguing semantics, because if the employer or business used the phrase 'liability', it *might* change everything. when i tell a patron watching a boxing match not to stand on his seat i use the excuse 'liability - who you going to sue if you fall down and hurt yourself?' thats completely legit, because the policy says that the insured needs to ensure that slip/fall risks are minimized/eliminated to the best of their ability. the insured would be found negligent if i didnt ask the patron to stop standing on his seat.

however, if i see a patron with a holstered gun, i cannot use the excuse 'liability' when i ask him to take it to his vehicle and store it there. because theres no provision in the policy that says i have to eliminate the risk of bodily injury/death caused by a firearm, rather its only a policy of the building owner.

dang, i didnt want thread drift. someone throw me a life line, pull me back to the thread please.

btw, i am certainly NOT a space man, but i am spiffy.
 
Google searches aren't quite as accurate as a credit check and criminal background check, any company that uses a google search for any meaningful background check needs to stop surfinng and get back to work.
Google searching your name is entertainment at best.

I work in IT, everything you do at work has the possibility of being recorded. Most companies don't go this far. But most companies have a firewall with monitoring capabilities. This will tie back to a specific workstation. Also packet filters will show the contents of posts as they are traveling out to the internet.

So Joe shows up on the firewall log as surfing gunforums.com all day. Once this is discovered, then its not a strectch to log on to gunforums.com and look at recent posts. Check the users and there is CrazyJoe with his location the same as our company. Or just seach the packets for his IP address. Now CrazyJoe is posting in a thread about bringing your CCW to work. CrazyJoe is now suspected of breaking company policy. A "caught red handed posting on the internet" really did happen on another non-gun related forum and the person got fired from their job because of a prank they pulled and posted about it.
 
If a potential employer found that you were a "gun nut" because you participate in a firearms forum more than likely you just wouldn't be hired. I don't think they are required to give specific reasons they choose another candidate. You could sue on the grounds that you were refused based on your firearms activity but the burden of proof is on you and I don't know that it would be accepted as any kind of discrimination. Clearly it is but I don't think the general public would see it that way.

There is no way they are going to tell you they are not hiring you due to firearms activity.

If you are already an employee I can't see them letting you go, unless you have furnished a more convienient unrelated reason at some point, but wouldn't be surprised if an email/memo wasn't circulated reiterating their "no guns on the premises policy" if the management are the anti/paranoid type.
 
Interesting how we discuss this as an invasion of privacy as far as what we do when we're not on the clock, yet many people seem to have no problem with taking a drug test...:evil:
 
I have been contemplating taking my website offline, and ending my use of a couple blog sites. As it is, I often get worried about the fact that I sit on THR all night posting from work. I don't want to take my site down, I've been running it for nearly a decade, it's a fun hobby, and has its uses in my life.

I work in IT, and I know precisely what companies can and can't get through firewall logs and other monitoring tools. I don't advertise my site around work, but eventually I either share it with someone, or they figure it out, and before you know it, I walk by a desk and there's my webpage on Desert Eagles or that tactical carbine course I took. I just hope it doesn't come back to haunt me when the next round of layoffs comes around. :uhoh:

Like most everyone, my 'online' life is detached from my 'real' life. But, its not hard to tie Kamicosmos = Dave. ISPs and websites have already proven that they will turn over login info and other personal data. Why should myspace or livejournal or ar15 take the fall if one of their users is a child molester/rapist/terrorist/etc? We already have legal precendents about using email and chat logs in court as evidence. Firewall logs, packet traces, and stuff like that is even better evidence.

My friends tell me I'm too paranoid for my own good. But, in this day and age, when they can wiretap your phone without a warrant...why would they ignore your internet habits?

:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top