Module 6

IS-365

Dr. Alan Carswell

Persuasive Arguments – Internet Privacy

In the Digital Age, the privacy of the individual has never been more compromised –

from Government agencies watching activity on the World Wide Web to companies firing

employees for “unacceptable behavior,” it’s no secret that the privacy in the Digital Age is a

topic of large debate and importance. One need only look to journals, media, and other news

outlets to find seemingly endless debates on a plethora of subjects. From minor concerns like

websites tracking your basic information via cookies, and major areas of debate such as

government officials’ use of email servers and the notorious Edward Snowden leaks several

years ago. However, perhaps the most interesting and somewhat common “breach” of privacy

is found in the relationship between the company and individual.

SOCIAL MEDIA PRIVACY & BUSINESSES

On the Internet, one frequently hears stories of an employee being fired or not

accepted within a company over his or her actions on Social Media. These debates always raise

the question: how much personal information should companies observe? Where is the line

between protecting company reputation and being intrusive in the employees’ lives? While all

cases are not clear, some clearly are – for instance, when five hospital employees were fired

(and a sixth underwent disciplinary action) for discussing patients’ conditions on Facebook.

(Anderson, 2010) This is a clear-cut case – HIPAA privacy rules demand that the personal

information of patients may not be disclosed without their explicit permission. (Anderson,

2010) Other instances, are not so explicit – when there is no regulation preventing you from

posting what you want on Social Media (i.e when you’re merely posting about your life), when

is it considered “acceptable” for a company to fire you?

ORGANIZATION VALUES, OR INTRUSION?

In a typical instance of one of these scenarios, Daily Mail reports on Ashley Payne - a 24-

year-old High School Teacher who, while travelling Europe, posted a picture of herself with

wine glass and beer in hand. (Mail, 2011) Following a complaint from a parent, Ms. Payne was

offered two options in an ultimatum: “resign or be suspended.” (Mail, 2011) This is a case

where I believe that organizations and companies are too intrusive. Ms. Payne did not commit

any actions that were in direct violation with the school, or even spoke negatively of it.

Consider the following questions – did her actions:

• Violate Regulations?

• Expose Private Information?

• Present the school in a bad light?

• Condone violent or hateful behavior?

• Mock or humiliate any person or entity?

I believe the answer to all of these questions is “no” – and while an argument can be made that

encouraging alcohol may not be something the school wishes to promote, the individual in

person did not do it within the premise of the property or while on duty as a teacher. Thus, this

action is completely private, and is a personal, legal decision. Cases like this, I argue, are too

intrusive. While I believe that a company should reserve the right to hire and fire whomever it

wishes, I also believe it should make these decisions based on that person’s actions regarding

the company. For example, as long as the individual’s actions are not while on duty or directly

referring to the organization, that organization should respect the privacy of an individual.

VALID OBSERVATION

There are reasonable reasons to observe Social Media – such as watching employees

that must not disclose information as in the HIPAA case – but in many cases, like the

aforementioned, this action is intrusive. Another case that I’ve personally heard from

professors is as follows: During a job interview, the interviewers requested for to the person’s

smartphone and social media for several minutes – as though this information is truly relevant

to the individual’s performance within the company. They wished to browse through the

individual’s Twitter and Facebook accounts before making a decision on whether they would

hire. Some may argue that it is necessary to judge a person’s character in order to uphold

company values, but this behavior from companies is extremely intrusive and disrespects

individuals’ privacy in the name of the company. That being said, there are some cases where

constant observation of employees is necessary:

• Very high-up positions (Who may represent company values)

• Positions in which individuals work with classified information (Government)

• Positions such as nurses who are subject to regulations regarding sensitive information

These positions require the integrity of the individual to be very strong so as not to give out

sensitive information or tarnish an organization’s reputation. Thus, an argument can be made

that such positions do require some observation.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Think of it this way – were you to be hired, imagine that the company you’ve applied for

searches through your entire life’s actions. Nothing is hidden, everything done and said among

friends, no matter whether reflective of your current beliefs and feelings, is seen and judged by

the company. All of this is done to ensure you’re “suitable” for the company and will likely

follow their rules. This is what company’s demanding access to see or follow your social media

accounts is akin to. Intruding one’s private space among friends and others to constantly

observe the employee. While it’s not quite 1984, this small trend in businesses is troubling, and

I believe violates basic rights to privacy.

While there are many other types of important security and privacy issues, through

cyberattacks, leaks, and the coming Internet of Things data, how companies interact with

individuals on social media will ever be a subject of discussion. (Gorodyansky, n.d.) These other

topics are indeed important, but the face of how companies observe employee’s private lives

may be a stage set today, during the birth and explosion of social media. As such, all must

carefully consider all aspects of what should and should not be visible to a company – what’s

private information, and what is done to “protect company integrity.”

Bibliography Anderson, H. (2010, June 8). 5 To Be Fired For Social Media Use. Retrieved from govinfosecurity:

http://www.govinfosecurity.com/5-to-be-fired-for-social-media-use-a-2622

Gorodyansky, D. (n.d.). Privacy and Security in the Internet Age. Retrieved from Wired: https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/01/privacy-and-security-in-the-internet-age/

Mail, D. (2011, February 7). Teacher sacked posting picture holding wine and mug of beer on Facebook. Retrieved from dailymail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354515/Teacher-sacked- posting-picture-holding-glass-wine-mug-beer-Facebook.html