Tag: social media background check

Think Your Data Is Private Because You’re Not on Social Media? Think Again.

Just because you’re not on Facebook or Twitter doesn’t mean your data is safe from social media or their clever algorithms. In two different studies, researchers found evidence that your privacy is no longer in your hands, even if you abstain from social media.

The studies, conducted at the University of Vermont and the University of Adelaide, found that they could predict a person’s posts on social media with 95% accuracy, even if they never had an account to begin with. The scientists got all the information they needed from a person’s friends, using posts from fewer than 10 contacts to build a mirror image of a person not even on the social network.  

The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Human Behavior, looked at more than 30 million public posts on Twitter (excluding retweets) from a total of 13,905 English-language users (attempting to eliminate bots and non-personal accounts) to populate their model. By using data provided by just 8 or 9 of a user’s contacts, the researchers were able to show that the tweets of friends allowed them to predict quite a bit about the original user. The original user’s Tweets allowed them to predict future tweets with an accuracy rate of roughly 64% and the user’s contacts gave them enough data to predict behavior with an accuracy rate of 61%. So, go ahead and delete your account, but information about you is still going to be generated (and pretty accurately) if you have a close relationship with at least 8 people who use the platform.

This analysis showed that “information within the Twitter messages from 8 or 9 of a person’s contacts make it possible to predict that person’s later tweets as accurately as if they were looking directly at that person’s own Twitter feed.”

“You alone don’t control your privacy on social media platforms,” University of Vermont professor Jim Bagrow said in a statement. “Your friends have a say too.” And even when you delete your social media accounts, if your friends are still there, tech giants are able to build profiles on you. This is already a concern that privacy advocates have about Facebook, called “shadow profiles.”

Now, there is a mathematical upper limit on how much predictive information a social network can hold. They can’t know everything about you, but they can know some things.

privacy in social media

So why is this information important? Businesses who want to sell you things or government agencies who want information about you can use this information to their benefit. Companies or agencies may not be able to find out your darkest secrets, but they can figure out things like your political or religious affiliation and products you might be interested in. The same things platforms like Facebook and Twitter know (and sell) about their users.

The researchers went on to acknowledge that their research “raises profound questions about the fundamental nature of privacy—and how, in a highly networked society, a person’s choices and identity are embedded in that network.”

“There’s no place to hide in a social network,” said 
co-author Lewis Mitchell.

Professor James Bagrow, also an author of the paper, confirmed: You alone don’t control your privacy on social media platforms. Your friends have a say too.

In April, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers that the social network collected data on nonusers for “security purposes.” That includes people’s contact list when they use Facebook’s mobile app, which the company uses to suggest friend recommendations, it explained.

In response to the study, a Facebook spokeswoman said the company doesn’t build profiles on nonusers, even if it’s collecting data on them. “If you aren’t a Facebook user, we can’t identify you based on this information, or use it to learn who you are,” the company said in a statement.

The study shows there’s only so much you can control in terms of your own privacy and security online. As careful as you are online, the study suggests that you’re only as private as your friends have been.

Are Background Checks Failing Us?

All one has to do these days is turn on the local news to hear about another teacher, coach or employee being accused of a crime of either drugs or child sexual abuse. If you are like me, the first question you think of is, “Don’t they do background checks?” What we are starting to find out, is yes they do. The problem is with the way in which the background checks are being done and by whom.

Let’s start with the basics and the must haves. The FCRA, or the Fair Credit Reporting Act, was passed in 1970 to ensure regulations of the collection of credit information. Additionally, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission   governs how this is to be done:

 In all cases, make sure that you’re treating everyone equally. It’s illegal to check the background of applicants and employees when that decision is based on a person’s race, national origin, color, sex, religion, disability, genetic information (including family medical history), or age (40 or older). For example, asking only people of a certain race about their financial histories or criminal records is evidence of discrimination.

Where the problem lies, in may cases, is with the actual agencies in which background companies receive their information. They may not be updated regularly enough. That in and of itself is a problem. But the list goes on…

background checks

You may be surprised to learn the following flaws:

  1. The FBI offers a National Criminal Information Center which is great, as long as the crime was reported to the FBI. Beginning in 1967, it is  dependent on records that have been provided by criminal justice agencies. It operates under a shared management concept between the FBI and federal, state, local and tribal criminal justice users.
  2. Many times education is not checked out thoroughly which can be very detrimental down the road. This includes professional licenses.
  3. They often don’t utilize the information from paid data bases.
  4. Social Media is rarely included. I don’t mean the prospective employee gives up passwords.  That should not ever be done in my opinion, however much can be gleaned by conducting a deep web investigation, without that information. A social media background check may reveal quite a lot about the character of the individual. Many HR execs are looking anyway, however hiring an agency is the safest way to go. A best practice is to never review your candidates’ social media profiles internally. This is beneficial because an agency’s review and social media report respect your candidate’s privacy and alleviates your employees from reviewing content that could lead to accusations of discrimination or violations of freedoms.

 

 

The Pros and Cons of Social Media Background Checks

You are in the process of interviewing candidates for a position and you have narrowed it down to your top 3. Typically you conduct background checks by calling references and verifying previous employment. But in today’s world where everything revolves around social media, it’s no surprise that Human Resources departments are turning to social media platforms to check their candidates’ backgrounds before making any hiring decisions.

Let’s take a look at the Pros and Cons of conducting social media background checks:

Advantages

1. Easy Background Check

Social media screening is a cheap way for a background check, the employer can access them anywhere they are and can make an immediate decision of hiring the candidate. It saves a lot of time to learn about the candidate through Facebook and LinkedIn profiles and does not require any additional money to be spent. Facebook posts are an easy insight into the candidate’s day to day life; Twitter is good to learn about how opinionated they are or about their personal thoughts. On the other hand, LinkedIn is good to learn about their professional makeup. With so many aspects available on the web, it is easy to know about the candidate in a complete way.

2. Eliminating Discrepancies

Social media background checks are a good way to confirm information on a candidate’s resume. Social media sites often provide information on the user’s previous occupations and work history. You can compare to see if there are any discrepancies in the resume they submit for the open position. A candidate may also claim to be an expert in a specific subject matter or have participated in certain volunteering efforts. Most of this information can be confirmed online on their social media platforms.

3. You Learn Who Your Candidate Really Is

Why do people tend to be more open and vulnerable on social media? Whether on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter, users often let their guard down and are completely honest. Whatever the reason, this can prove to be beneficial to HR because few candidates feel free to truly be themselves in such a formal and high-pressure environment. During the job interview the candidate tends to put up the best foot in every aspect, hence, it does not provide the complete picture as to how a candidate will behave on a day to day basis at work.

But looking at online profiles can tell you what someone is passionate about or how they treat other people. It can also help you spot red flags. Does your candidate have a habit of ranting about her boss and colleagues online? Does an applicant who seemed friendly in the interview crack racist or sexist jokes on Twitter?

The information revealed by a social media background check is rarely essential to the hiring process, but in some cases, it can help you spot major red flags about a person’s character. Respect for others is always the main agenda for an employer that they look in a candidate and this information can easily be found in social media space. Someone who badmouths a company or spouts off derogatory remarks online is not a good ambassador for your brand and is probably someone you want to pass over when you are hiring.

 

Disadvantages

  1. Legal Risks

While your social media background screening may seem innocent and purely professional, you could be exposed to potential legal risks in terms of privacy and human rights should your background screening methods be used against you. The legal risks may arise from the public information you gathered about the candidate.

For example, a candidate might list his age, race, religion, or sexual orientation as part of a Facebook profile. Whether you want to admit it or not, subconsciously learning this information about an applicant may affect how you feel about them. Hiring managers are at full liberty to have their own opinions about sensitive political, religious, and lifestyle matters, however, the second those opinions influence a hiring decision, they become discrimination.

  1. Privacy Settings

Most social media sites allow users to adjust the privacy settings on their profiles. Smart candidates are more careful with what they post online. With this knowledge, candidates can easily create a social media profile that works to their advantage and HR has no choice but to accept what can be seen publicly as the truth. Be mindful that what you see is not always what you get.

  1. You Might End Up Wasting Time

One of the biggest problems with social media background checks is that it’s unpredictable. Finding people on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn can be a challenge if you don’t share any connections or mutual friends. And even if you do find your candidate, privacy settings on social platforms can make it impossible to view their posts. Social media background checks can end up being a lot of work for potentially no return.

Conclusion

If you’re thinking about browsing the social media profiles of your top candidates, you need to consider both arguments before deciding.

Always run other types of background checks regardless of your position on social media background checks. Social media can tell you more about a person – from general likes and dislikes to character details – but it can’t replace traditional and trusted background check sources such as criminal screenings and employment verification checks.

If you ever decide to use a candidate’s social media profile for hiring purposes – whether to find contact information or to run a full-blown social media background examination – have someone other than the hiring manager do the work. Looking at a Facebook page can unintentionally reveal too much information – as such, it’s a good idea to have a person uninvolved with the hiring manager look through the applicant’s social accounts and prepare a report of relevant or potentially relevant information. This person can act as a filter, keeping information that might create a bias out of the hands of the hiring manager.

 

 

 

About Us:

We have been mining social media since 2007 for our clients. By utilizing best in class software programs, we offer a service called eChatter.

eChatter works with you to obtain your objectives in a fast, accurate and reliable facet. By keeping our strengthened principals, yet evolving with this industry, we lead in social media monitoring. Since 2007, we have been dedicated to providing our customers with the most authentic data.

 

We offer:

·       Deep Web Scans

·       Jury Vetting

·       Jury Monitoring

·       Quick Scan

 

 

www.e-chatter.net

(866) 703-8238

 

Social Media in Court: A Look Back at Casey Anthony & Scott Peterson

I’ve often wondered what the OJ Simpson trial would have looked like had social media been a “thing” at the time – that was an extremely high profile case that would have likely blown up social media.

The two high profile cases that were “firsts” really as far as the boom of social media include the Casey Anthony case, the young woman acquitted in her toddler’s death in 2007 and Scott Peterson, who is currently on death row for the death of his wife and unborn son in 2002. Both trials stuck with me, partly because I kept tabs on both trials, especially the Casey Anthony case, where the public had full view of the search for Caylee, the videos of the conversations between family members, and the day to day trial news.

From a legal perspective, these cases are interesting for another reason – both were influenced by social media, even though it was in its infancy at the time. Thinking back to those trials and looking at how impactful social media has (and will) become in court is fascinating.

In the Casey Anthony case, the defense lawyer hired a jury consultant who monitored social media to gauge perception and, more interestingly, help the lawyer as he presented his case. After the trial was over, it came out that the trial consultant actually monitored the online conversation and encouraged Casey’s lawyer to go easier on his questioning of Casey’s father, George. The online sentiment was negative, and showed that the public felt he was being too harsh on the father. The lawyer listened and changed his game plan. According to Amy Singer, the jury consultant, “Social media was the difference between winning and losing.”

Scott Peterson’s case was a bit different. Social media was still very new, and wasn’t likely used as it was in the Casey Anthony trial. However, on recently watching a show that recapped this case, it came out that there is an appeal set to expire at the end of the year. One of the reasons for the appeal? A juror may have lied during voir dire, which they can claim compromised the trial. If the appeal holds, it will be a major event. Personally, I don’t think it will be an issue, but stranger things have happened. Imagine if social media monitoring were prominent back then – this may have been easily uncovered and given the defense one less reason to try to appeal.

So, how has social media evolved since then?

There is a wealth of information that can be taken from social media, and it is being used more and more by investigators, lawyers, and jury consultants. I’d still consider it in its infancy, but I fully expect this will be commonplace across the board in the next three to five years.

In case you’re having a hard time keeping up, here are some ways social media is being used in the legal industry:

Social media background checks/investigations: used as a source of supporting information, there are now pretty in depth social media background checks available to lawyers and investigators. The name is slightly misleading though – while some providers do only focus on social media, most are starting to provide a variety of content from all public facing online sources. These can be used for a lawyer’s client, a defendant or plaintiff, or anyone tied to a case.

Voir dire: In the Scott Peterson case, having a way to run quick online checks during the jury selection process may have uncovered the juror’s past and immediately made her ineligible to serve as a juror. Some states allow for a list of potential jurors to be available prior to voir dire, and others do not. In either case, social media/online research services are available for this purpose.

Jury monitoring: Keeping jurors from posting to online sites during a trial can be a tricky process. They are given the instructions at the onset of the trial, but how can you ensure they are adhering to it? Using social media monitoring of the individuals sitting on the jury can be beneficial, as can geolocating monitoring. Put a fence around the courthouse, a hotel if the jury is sequestered, and and monitor online content being posted throughout the trial.

Witness/evidence content for trial: People now serve as novice journalists – how often do we see a situation unfold and it’s followed by several witness accounts, posts, and videos? This can be cruical information for a trial or case. By utilizing a service that will scan for mentions of the incident as well as location based monitoring that can go back to a recent time when the incident happened, it may allow lawyers and investigators to find & identify witnesses or obtain details/video that will help immensely.

This is still a new technology as far as the legal/investigative industry is concerned, and the “rules of the game” are still being defined and made into law. However, this cannot be overlooked – the content that you may uncover can be the one thing to help win your case.