Facebook Creeping!

The Ethics Involved With Employers Usage of Facebook

Jay Schultz CSC 300 Professor Clark Turner 11/25/2008

Abstract
In the recent years, internet usage has been on the rise with more and more users actively visiting their favorite websites for the purposes of keeping up-to-date with news, entertainment, and their individual social life. The social networking companies like Facebook have lately been producing the top emerging websites. These public service websites offer the ability for friends and family to share personal information back and forth with ease. However with the increasing growth and popularity of these public social communities, there have been some questionable unintended uses of the service. Specifically, some employers have started to use the Facebook website in order to prescreen hopeful applicants. This paper discusses the ethical concerns regarding these actions. Particularly, the paper addresses multiple arguments from both parties; employers and applicants. Using ethical analysis, a conclusion is drawn that it is unethical for employers to use Facebook to prescreen applicants without prior permission. Employers should solely rely on information that is relevant, fully disclosed prior to any research, and received from a reliable source in order to correctly make a professional decision.

Contents 1. Introduction 2. Facts

2.1 Background 2.1.1 Online Social Networks 2.1.2 Privacy Settings 2.1.3 Online Human Resource Research 2.2 Case Studies 2.2.1 Northwestern Student 2.2.2 Dartmouth Student

1 2
2 2 4 5 6 6 6

3. Ethical Issue
3.1 Ethical Question 3.2 Ethical Focus

7
7 7

4. Ethical Arguments
4.1 Employer Arguments 4.1.1 Public Information 4.1.2 Cross-reference Accuracy 4.1.3 Company Representation 4.2 Applicant Arguments 4.2.1 Separation of Professional and Personal Life 4.2.2 Objective Screening 4.2.3 Personal Views

8
8 8 8 9 10 11 11 12

4.2.4 Inaccurate Information 4.2.5 Privacy Infringement

12 13

5. Ethical Analysis
5.1 Main Issues 5.1.1 Privacy 5.1.2 Discrimination 5.1.3 Accuracy 5.2 Summary

14
14 14 16 18

6. Conclusion 7. Bibliography A. Privacy Tips B. Glossary

1. Introduction
The Facebook website, www.facebook.com, is the number one social media networking website in the world. [comScore] The social networking websites started their development in 1997 and have been increasingly growing ever since. [JCMC] Now high school students, collegiate students, regional citizens, professionals, and just about everyone else has joined or at least has heard of the online social networks. [Facebook] However with this many users gathering in one public domain, privacy issues are bound to occur. University administrators have begun to use such networks to track their students. Law enforcements have also jumped onboard to monitor community citizens and their activities. [The Argonaut] Furthermore, employers have started to use the social networking websites to research and prescreen their applicants. [Careerbuilder.com] Ethical questions have been asked with the new involvement of employers seeking out applicants information by use of one specific social network, Facebook. What is considered private information? What is considered public? Is it lawful for employers to use Facebook with intent to research applicants? Is it fair? This paper has addressed these questions and more in the analysis of the ethics behind employers using Facebook. The facts and details about the subject are given with the help of official sources that include Facebook itself as well as comScore, an internet marketing research company, along with many others. Surveys taken by CareerBuilder.com, a website intended to help interaction between employers and applicants, have also been used to show the recent increase of employers using online services to run background checks. A specific ethical question is asked and the

Schultz 1 arguments from both sides are provided. By the end of the paper, different ethical analysis is applied to examine the question and presents a precise conclusion using all of the available resources including the Software Engineering Code of Ethics.

2. Facts
2.1 Background

2.1.1 Online Social Networks Social networking websites are defined as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public profile, (2) articulate a list of other users, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections. [JCMC] The first social networking website, SixDegrees.com, appeared online in 1997. Currently the two biggest online networks are MySpace, founded in 2003, and Facebook, founded in 2004. [comScore] They both consist of the fundamental features of any social networking website such as: friends, profiles, groups, and a messaging system. Each user can become a friend with another user if each user agrees. And each user is given a profile to display desired personal information like contact and educational specifics. Users can also be a part of any particular group with the purpose of finding other users with the same interests. Lastly, they have a messaging system that allows users to communicate with one another. Since the first creation of a social networking website, numerous competitors have begun to battle for the number one spot; each offering their own set of unique features. Facebook, currently the top online social networking website, was created by Mark Zuckerburg in his Harvard dorm room. Its original intent was to connect the Harvard students amongst one another. However, Facebook began allowing user

Schultz 2 registration from 4 select universities: Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, and Yale. It then quickly expanded to 800 different college networks which all required a @college.edu email account. Shortly after, Facebook expanded further accepting high school student associated within their respective networks. Still in its year years, Facebook added professional networks and then finally extended its service to anyone. Now every user is associated with at least one of the 55,000 different networks based on their college, high school, profession, social, or geographic region. [Facebook] Facebook has its own set of distinct characteristics that set it apart from the other online networks. The unique features include its photo sharing capabilities, its profile information, its wall, and its application based on an open source platform. Facebook currently has over 52,000 different applications available to its users. The organizational style Facebook applies to its profiles offer a clean and fashionable look-and-feel. Facebook also offers a variety of editable text regions on its profiles ranging from personal interest to work related history. In addition, each user is given a wall, a public space to display user to user conversations and other interactions, as well as a feed to notify friends of the recent interactions. The photo sharing capabilities enable users to upload and post photos to the website and then associate other users with the photograph by tagging each user in the individual photo. All of these specific components are apart of the Facebook community and make it stand out amongst its competitors. [Facebook] With the recent development of online heavy-weights, Facebook in particular, social network websites have been among the top sources of unique internet visitors. The online social network websites alone accounted for 239 million unique visitors just for

Schultz 3 the month of May in 2008. Alone, Facebook currently has more than 120 million active 1 users within its 55 thousand different networks. It is also the number one photo sharing application on the Web with more than 30 million photos uploaded daily. [Facebook] Facebook just reported to be the number one most-trafficked social media website in the world in addition to being the 4th most-trafficked website overall. The growths of these social networking websites have just been fueling the recent increase of everyday internet usage. [comScore]

2.1.2 Privacy Settings Facebook offers many solutions to the privacy concerns of its community users. For instance, there are individual settings for search visibility, profile visibility, components of the wall, and the applications as a whole. Each components visibility can be set to either: My Networks and Friends, People in My Network, Friends of friends, or Only Friends. [Facebook] The applications are the only component where you cannot explicitly set the visibility settings. However, users can choose to share or not share specific privacy settings with the applications platform. And each application is required to have its own set of privacy settings. Another privacy option is to completely block an individual user, but the user must know the name of the person in order to fully block any activity between each other. However by default, Facebook generally assigns the most lenient and lax privacy settings when a user creates a new account. Most of the settings default to the My Networks and Friends visibility setting unless explicitly changed by the user after setting up the new account. Additionally, an article in The Daily Pennsylvanian stated that four
1

An active user is defined as a user who has returned to the site in the last 30 days. (Facebook.com)

Schultz 4 out of five members are using the site with the default privacy setting. [The Daily Pennsylvanian] That translates into, any single user in the same network is granted access to another users wall, groups, contact information, online presence, photos, videos, personal information, and fiends list. Furthermore, by default select information including a users name, networks, and a list of friend will be visible in the results of any Facebook user search.

2.1.3 Online Human Resource Research Corporate companies have been doing background checks since 1970 in order to screen possible applicants. [Money Management] Just recently have company human resource departments been using the internet to perform more extensive informal background checks. Employers online research methods range from company to company. Some just simply using Google by typing an applicants name into their search engine and examine the search results that get returned. [Jones] Other employers will fully subscribe to online social networks like MySpace and Facebook in order to get their research. The uses of these social network websites are giving employers a much more detailed view of applicants in a nonprofessional setting and the realization is that everyone is doing it. [NY Times] In fact 22% of employers have said that they have used some kind of online resource in order to look up and research applicants. And 12% of employers said they have used a social networking website such as Facebook. [CareerBuilder.com] Even if it is not a company policy, recruiters have accounts themselves allowing them to check the profiles of job applicants. [The Crimson] Out of the employers that actually use the

Schultz 5 online social network resources, 63% percent of them said that they found information on the sites that made them not want to hire the applicants. [CareerBuilder.com] The online social networks are having increasing impact on applicant prescreening. Chris R. Hughes, spokesman for Facebook.com, says that Its not how we originally intended the site to be used. That said, it is within these peoples legal rights to go in and get a better sense of what people are like. [The Crimson]

2.2 Case Studies

2.2.1 Northwestern Student The Northwestern University newspaper, North by Northwestern, released an article about one of their students experience with employers usage of Facebook. The student applied through the University Career Services and submitted a strong rsum. She had a GPA above 3.7, but still was having a difficult time getting an internship interview. With the help of a Career Services staff member, they were able to come to the conclusion that her Facebook profile was hurting her. The staff member openly asked an employer regarding the student and why she was not getting positive feedback from the company. The employer gave the simplistic response of look at your Facebook. [North by Northwestern]

2.2.2 Dartmouth Student A Dartmouth University newspaper interviewed one employer who admitted to using Facebook in order to research and screen his applicants. He declared that he knew how

Schultz 6 to search the Dartmouth network specifically and then search throughout the networks users looking for specific phrases under their posted interests. He described one instance when a candidate perished at the hands of Facebook. His Facebook profile had his number one interest as smoking blunts with the homies. His number two interest was busting caps in the whities. And his third interest included sexually assaulting someone. The employer went on to state that he thought the student as probably just kidding. However, the employer still asked himself the question what did his interest say about his maturity and his professionalism? [The Dartmouth]

3. Ethical Issue
3.1 Ethical Question Is it ethical for employers to use Facebook in order to prescreen applicants without prior permission?

3.2 Ethical Focus The ethical focus is on the specific case that an applicant has created a new Facebook account under a given network with the default privacy settings and an employer uses an existing employee in a corresponding network to view the applicants profile.

4. Arguments
4.1 Employer Arguments

Schultz 7 4.1.1 Public Information The first argument in favor of using Facebook to prescreen applicants is that the user content posted on website is public information. When the applicants register to use the Facebook website, they agree to the Terms of Use document that states By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grantthe Company an irrevocableworldwide license to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly displayUser Content for any purpose. [Facebook Terms of Use] Given such public User Content is widely available on their applicants, employers feel that they should be able to take advantage of the free information within Facebook. [Connell] The employers also explain that the applicants are the ones posting stuff on the internet voluntarily, it's not like (we are) hacking the website. [Yahoo] Additionally, employers claim they are not doing anything unlawful to get their candidates information, but only using the public service that has been provided. They believe they have the same right to access this information as any other user on the social network website.

4.1.2 Cross-reference Accuracy The traditional collection of rsums is the tactic most often used for employers to prescreen applicants. [Pell] However with a recent survey reporting that nearly 50% of rsums (contain) factual errors, employers reason the need alternative ways of prescreening applicants. [Jones] Formal background checks allow employers to crossreference such things as employment history, credit reports, and criminal activity. However, they require time and money to perform on every applicant. [Money Management] Using online social networks like Facebook offer companies a fast free

Schultz 8 service to perform background checks and specifically cross-reference the accuracy of their vast amount of applicant information. They can double-check an applicants age, employment history, expected graduation date, email address, and groups they claim to participate in just by browsing their Facebook profiles. Overall, employers argue that the Facebook public service gives them fast accessibility of most, if not all, the information needed to efficiently and accurately prescreen any applicant. [NY Times]

4.1.3 Company Representation Employers also argue that using Facebook to research applicants allows them to get a better look at the individual in a non formal setting. One employer told an executive director of a university career center that they look for red flags. Facebook allows employers to specifically ask is there something about their lifestyle that we might find questionable or that we might find goes against the core values of our corporation? [NY Times] Employers explain that they are making a huge investment when they offer applicants full time jobs and they do not want the investment to turn sour. [The Dartmouth] Employee theft and fraud cost US retail businesses more than $50 billion annually. [Snell] Some red flags employers have found while researching applicants with Facebook are explicit user content. For example, an applicants Facebook profile listed smoking blunts, shooting people, and obsessive sex for his interests. The employers like the ability to research candidates so they can answer the question, what kind of judgment does this person have? [NY Times]

Schultz 9 4.2 Applicant Arguments

4.2.1 Separation of Professional and Personal Life A main argument for applicants against employers prescreening them using Facebook is that the social network websites are intended for personal use. There is a difference between personal and professional life and many applicants want to keep their work life separate from their personal life. [Government Events] Applicants argue that it is not right for employers to use Facebook for such professional uses like prescreening. One example that was given includes a statement from a Microsoft manager, who openly said they use Facebook to research applicants and that its becoming very much a common tool. [NY Times] However, applicants responded with the question of why they are being judged on their personal lives if Microsoft visibly notes in their Standards of Business Conduct document that specific events like political activities are entirely personal and to be done on their own time. [Microsoft] Applicants argue the hypocrisy involved with using a personal service like Facebook to do professional work like prescreening.

4.2.2 Objective Screening Another applicants concern is the lack of objective screening when employers use an online social network for prescreening. Not all applicants are guaranteed to be using the same websites or even using any social networking website at all. With each social network website offering its own unique features, there is no way to objectively screen numerous different applicants. Applicants want to see that the process is fair and equal

Schultz 10 for all applicants applying for any position. And prospective employees fear that with no formal list to compare and contrast all applicants when using the informal background checking of Facebook, it could result in unfair subjective prescreening practices. [Entrepreneur.com]

4.2.3 Personal Views When using Facebook, many personal life views are in plain sight when viewing an individuals profile. Applicants wonder if this information might have an influence on employers if they research and view their profiles to prescreen them for a job. Political views, religious views, and even sexual preferences are just a click away when using Facebook. Applicants and employers both know that these qualities cannot be used to influence a hiring decision, but what if its subconscious? [Connelly] The employer is going to see this information if they do any kind of search for the applicant on the social networking sites. Applicants personal views are also apparent in the specific network groups their involved in. There is no way for employers to see an applicants profile information without seeing their personal preferences. As a result, candidates argue employers should not be able to see any part of their profile. [Facebook]

4.2.4 Inaccurate Information Social networking websites do not offer any kind of guarantee that they provide and display only accurate information. Applicants are concerned that if employers prescreen using Facebook, they might encounter incorrect information. Information found on the internet is not entirely factual. Even factual information on the internet can be taken out

Schultz 11 of context. [Jones] Additionally what happens if an employer searches a student by his name and school, but finds multiple students with the same name. There is no way for the employer to know which one is the correct student applying for the job. Applicants ask, what if an employer enters a search and then begins to research the student from the given results but does not realize its the wrong person. This would give a completely wrong picture of the applicant and might ruin their chance at getting the job. Another way employers might receive inaccurate information on applicants is if their Facebook profiles had encountered Facebook rape. Facebook rape is the term given to a specific Facebook account that has been accessed by a third party, unknown to the accounts owner, which alters and adds humiliating or otherwise derogatory words to the accounts profile for the purpose of a prank. [Urban Dictionary] This Facebook rape can range from changing sexual preference to posting incriminating photos. And though this act is intended to be a joke, applicants worry that a false persona would be portrayed if an employer happens to view their profile under this tampered state.

4.2.5 Privacy Infringement Some applicants are aware that Facebook is a public service and the things they post are publicly accessible, but they still believe it is a privacy infringement to misuse such information. An applicant complains that if he uploads something to the website to be visible, it is intended to be viewed by public friends and peers. Employers are neither the applicants friends nor peers and they do not have the right to view their profile only to misuse the available information. Applicants explain and argue that this is not what the website was intended for. [The Crimson]

Schultz 12

5. Ethical Analysis
The ethical question has been asked and the surrounding arguments have been stated from both parties; each having various persuasive reasons. Next, each argument will be examined and analyzed with documented sources including the Software Engineering Code of Ethics along with other official documents. The collective results will allow for a detailed analytical summary, followed by an overall conclusion answering the addressed ethical question.

5.1 Main Issues

5.1.1 Privacy The first issue I will address is regarding the privacy concerns. Specifically, how are employers attaining applicant information during their research? By default, your profile is setup to allow users the ability to search and view your profile if they are in the same network. For instance, an employer might use themselves or a fellow employee that has alumni status in your collegiate network to view an applicant profile. Or employers might use existing employees that exist in the same regional network in order to perform their research. And what if the employer has no current employees that exist in either of these categories? An employer can hire currentstudents to do the research. [Daily Pennsylvanian] These are all possible ways for employers to view a typical applicants profile that has the default privacy settings assigned.

Schultz 13 Except by examining exactly how the employers are getting their research on applicants, we can see that employers are misusing the service. Facebook states on its website that it is a social utility that helps people communicate more efficiently with their friends, family, and coworkers. None of the discussed ways for employers to attain access are considered to be friends, family, or coworkers. Additionally, the site is intended to allow for users interaction within a trusted environment. [Facebook Terms of Use] Overall, the employers are misusing the public service as well as using it under false pretense in order to perform their research to prescreen applicants. And the employers continue to argue that they are permitted to search and use the information on Facebook because it is free public information. This claim is true to an extent. When applicants join the Facebook website, they agree to the Terms of Use document which allows posted information to become public and available to its users. However, the Terms of Use also states that employers are not allowed to use the user content for any commercial use. So even though the content might be posted on the website and the employer can get access to see it, they agreed to not use the content for any commercial use when they created their own personal account. Thus if employers do use particular information that was solely found on the Facebook website to prescreen applicants, it is a violation of Terms of Use. [Facebook Terms of Use] This argument of the employers can also be put into perspective by a real-life scenario. Employers claim it is a public website, so we will set the location to take place at a public mall. And we will use the specific case that an employer is able to view messages between applicants by setting up two people talking in the food court. So now we have these two people talking amongst themselves in the middle of a public mall.

Schultz 14 What if someone came over only to stand directly over there shoulders listening to every word the two people said. Is that right? Its a public place! But isnt it a private conversation? Another issue to examine regarding the privacy issues is that employers are doing research without any consent. Many applicants believe this is a violation of privacy. In the more traditional prescreening process, you give an employer your rsum. It is something you give to them and you directly choose what to disclose to them. Another common way is for the employers to do a formal background check on your criminal and credit history. However in order for employees to perform this background check, they have to give notification and permission in accordance to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [Jones] So if employers are required to get consent before performing a formal background check, shouldnt the employers also have to get consent before they can use Facebook to research applicants? If we acknowledge the code of ethics section 2.03, it states that software engineers should use the property of a clientin ways properly authorized, and with the clientsknowledge and consent. [SECOE] It is clearly stated in the SE Code of Ethics that consent is necessary. In addition the SE Code of Ethics also state in section 5.02 that software engineers should be informed of standards before being held to them. [SECOE] With no consent or any prior permission, many applicants are not aware that Facebook can be used as a tool to screen them.

5.1.2 Discrimination The second topic I will bring to question is the possibility of discrimination when employers use Facebook. Facebook profiles contain a lot of personal information such as

Schultz 15 political stances, religious views, and sexual preferences. When employers research applicants, all of this personal information is clearly visible. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission directly states that employers are not allowed to discriminate on any of such terms in addition to the traits of age, gender, or personal interest. [EEOC] But is there a way to ensure that employers are not using this information to screen applicants. And what if employers are subconsciously discriminating? There is no way to guarantee that employers are not taking these qualities under consideration. These characteristics are not appropriate qualities for an employer to judge any applicant. Along those lines, the section 8.07 of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics states that engineers will not give unfair treatment to anyone because of any irrelevant prejudices. Age, gender, and even martial status are all characteristics that can be easily found just by looking at an average Facebook profile, but are completely irrelevant when it comes to job qualifications. Discrimination ranges beyond just personal life views, but also towards making judgments determining if an applicant can uphold company policies through the usage of Facebook. The employers claim to just be looking for red flags, but they also go on to say they are asking themselves if this person can represent the company in the future. That is a pretty hard decision to make just by using the social networking website; especially when the website is focused on personal life and not the professional aspect. The applicants also brought to attention a good argument of why companies like Microsoft prescreen based on one social aspect, but then say to keep it out of the workplace. The workplace has a separation of personal and professional life, shouldnt the process of hiring be too? How can you expect to have one without the other?

Schultz 16 Facebook is not a professional tool and it is too easy to discriminate between applicants using Facebook based on its nonprofessional context. The last issue of discrimination deals with subjective screenings. How can companies offer objective prescreening using Facebook, when not all applicants have a Facebook? Simply, they cannot. How can you compare and contrast amongst applicants if everyone does not have an equal advantage? If an applicant has a good Facebook, then do they get special treatment? And if applicants dont have a Facebook at all do they get frowned upon? In order to offer an objective prescreening process, Facebook should not be allowed unless all applicants are given prior notice that it will affect the employers decisions during the hiring process.

5.1.3 Accuracy The third and final issue that I will examine is the concern of accurate information being portrayed onto the Facebook website. The employers have argued that rsums do not offer the best solution to prescreening applicants with half of them containing errors and that Facebook offers a better solution. However, the applicants argue with a direct opposite statement claiming that the information on Facebook can easily be false. When employers do use Facebook to cross reference accuracy with other documents, they really are no certain ways to ensure that the employers are viewing accurate information. However, if employers do use Facebook to prescreen applicants and do find something that they do not approve of, they should at least inform the applicant. The information could be out of context or incorrect. The SE Code of Ethics addresses this issue in section 4.05 stating that engineers should disclose to all

Schultz 17 concerned parties those conflicts of interest. [SECOE] I interrupted this to mean that if an employer finds something that they do not approve of, they should inform the applicant and explain the problem. By informing the applicants of known conflicts, this enables the applicant to clarify any incorrect data and also give a face to face interaction between the employer and applicant.

5.2 Summary Analyzing the main issues of privacy, discrimination, and accuracy in much detail, I have been able to develop a conclusion to the ethical question using various documented sources. I have concluded that employers have been misusing the social networking websites when researching applicants. It is unethical for the employers to use the website under the false pretense of a friend or peer. And even though employers do not unlawfully view an applicants personal information, considering the user content is free public content, the employers usage of this information to screen applicants is still in direct violation of the Facebook Terms of Use document under the non-commercial usage section. Furthermore, the employers lack of prior notification and permission from the screened applicants are considered unethical when we look at sections 5.02 and 2.03 of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics. Regarding the issue of discrimination, I have also concluded that the employers use of Facebook is unethical and unjust. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that certain personal information cannot be considered when applying for a job. The lack of ability to guarantee employers non visibility of conflicting personal information makes Facebook an unethical tool in the researching and prescreening of

Schultz 18 applicants. In addition, Facebook offers too much of a personal and not enough of a professional aspect to its users be an objective screening resource. It is just too easy to discriminate amongst job candidates using the social networking website. The last issue of accuracy regarding visible user content, has also led to the usage of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics. Since there is no way to determine if the user content on Facebook is accurate, employers do not have any way to ensure they are looking at the right candidate. And when employers currently do use Facebook to prescreen applicants, it is seen unethical because of section 4.05 of the SE Code of Ethics. If there is any conflict of interest, all parties involved should be notified. Prescreening with Facebook does not give any feedback to the applicants and no conflicts are addresses.

6. Conclusion
While the online social networking websites continue to grow, so will the amount of users. And as the websites age and mature so will their purpose and functionality. University administrators, law enforcements, and employers will continue to use the online networks until they are explicitly not allowed. However as I have illustrated, employers should not ethically rely on websites like Facebook to make crucial hiring decisions. There are many ethically issues that arise for employers when they use Facebook. Ethically, employers should rely solely on relevant information that has been gathered from a reliable source only after receiving permission from the applicant. In the end, it would be a smarter investment for all employers to just take the proper time and the proper professional steps to correctly screen their applicants.

Schultz 19

7. Bibliography

1. Boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>. 2. "comScore Releases 2007 U.S. Internet Year in Review." Press Release. 30 Jan 2008. comScore. 19 Nov 2008 <http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=2043>. 3. Connell, Kevin. "Should Employers Use MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn to Screen Candidates and Make Hiring Decisions? Background Screening Expert Explains the Dangers to Avoi." 18 Nov 2008 <http://www.isnare.com/?aid=304504&ca=Business+Management>. 4. "Facebook rape." Urban Dictionary 6 Jan 2008 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Facebook%20rape>. 5. "For Some, Online Persona Undermines a Rsum." NY Times 11 Jun 2006 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/us/11recruit.html?ex=1307678400&en=ddfbe1 e3b386090b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>. 6. Garmire, Sean. "FACEBOOK BECOMES LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOL." The Argonaut 04 Apr 2006 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.uiargonaut.com/content/view/1547/48/>. 7. gomanyes562, "Yahoo Answers!." 24 Nov 2008 <http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080105191521AAhIB9q>.

Schultz 20 8. GUNDLING, JILIAN. "Facebook: The facetime that can lose you a job." The Dartmouth 02 Nov 2007 23 Nov 2008 <http://thedartmouth.com/2007/11/02/arts/jobsandfacebook/>. 9. Himeles, Sara. "Facebook: for more than just your friends." The Daily Pennsylvanian 1/22/2008 23 Nov 2008 <http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2008/01/2 2/News/Facebook.For.More.Than.Just.Your.Friends-3160579.shtml>. 10. Jones, Michael. "The Ethics of Pre-Employment Screening Through the Use of the Internet." 1-7. 18 Nov 2008 <http://www.ethicapublishing.com/ethical/3CH4.pdf>. 11. Kaufman, Nina. "Can You Use Google to Pre-Screen Employees?."Make if Legal! Feb 2008 23 Nov 2008 <http://legal.entrepreneur.com/2008/02/13/can-youuse-google-to-pre-screen-employees/>. 12. "Laws Enforced by the EEOC." The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC. 18 Nov 2008 <http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/laws.html>. 13. Levin, Avner. "The Next Digital Divide:Online Social Network Privacy." Ryerson University (2007) 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.governmentevents.ca/ypo2008/presentations/636.pdf>. 14. "Microsoft Standards of Business Conduct." 15 May 2003 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/buscond/default.mspx>. 15. MOSSAVAR-RAHMANI , CYRUS. "Facebook Profiles May be Monitored." The Harvard Crimson 19 Dec 2005 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510708>.

Schultz 21 16. "One-in-Five Employers Use Social Networking Sites to Research Job Candidates, CareerBuilder.com Survey Finds." 10 Sept 2008. Careerbuilder.com. 18 Nov 2008 <http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr459&sd =9/10/2008&ed=12/31/2008&siteid=cbpr&sc_cmp1=cb_pr459_&cbRecursionCnt=3 &cbsid=026d9a3c5c7d42dc97a2dcba0e260c5b-280376733-TD-4>. 17. Snell, Alice. "IT security gets personal." 18 Jan 2007 19 Nov 2008 <http://www.networkworld.com/careers/2007/012207-careers-security.html>. 18. Schiffman, Lizzie. "Employers use Facebook information when hiring." Campus News. 12 NOV 2007. Northwestern University. 19 Nov 2008 <http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/2007/11/5072/employers-use-facebookinformation-when-hiring/>. 19. "Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice." 1999. ACM. 18 Nov 2008 <http://www.acm.org/about/se-code>. 20. "Statistics." 23 Sept 2008. Facebook.com. 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics >. 21. "Terms of Use." 23 Sept 2008. Facebook.com. 18 Nov 2008 <http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf>.