CIO has an article entitled Introducing the ‘Safe Social Media’ background check wherein the potential for more informed employment decisions based on social media background checks are lauded. The article touts the supposed benefits of finding out whether or not potential employees are sexually, racially or substance aligned deviants.
And boy does Social Intelligence find a mother load. In addition to sexually explicit and provocative photos, videos and text, Drucker has seen racist activity, violent activity, and pictures of people brandishing assault weapons, handguns, even samurai swords. “We see people looking to acquire Oxycontin,” he adds. “We see pictures of people using drugs.”
Racial slurs, photos of people with weapons or in sexually compromising positions are fair game for employers to consider, Drucker says, because they indicate an individual’s judgment and employers are allowed to make hiring decisions based on a job seeker’s perceived professional judgment.
Hmm. I have concerns. Since when does a video or picture of a person with a weapon create grounds for concern about a possible hiring decision? Are we really a nation that lives in such fear of anyone with a weapon that we shun employing those people? That certainly causes concern for a National Guardsman such as my self – I am a professional weapons handler as well as being a pretty good IT manager, consultant and systems administrator. Who decides whether the pictures of me online firing various rifles or posing with my handgun collection constitutes a danger to the public or to the employees and customers of a potential employer? Who decides the difference between brandishing and professional handling? Does it make a difference if I am in or out of uniform? Am I employable if the images show me conducting official training and unemployable if the images show me target shooting on my private range?
It’s quite insulting to have someone lump illegal drug use in with weapons ownership. How is a racial slur or sexual predilection lumped in with weapons ownership or possession? The article didn’t say anything about pictures of gang members doing a drive by. It specifically mentioned generic images of “racist activity, violent activity, and pictures of people brandishing assault weapons, handguns, even samurai swords.” How unprofessional to lump all these activities together as if they are inherently related. I find it unfortunate that our society has been dumbed down to the point that I now have to worry about someone finding a picture of me online enjoy target shooting or participating in marksmanship because those images might be blindly used as grounds for an employer to eliminate me as a potential employee.
What criteria are used by these resellers of personal information to determine the difference between a rational person using a weapon in a lawful way and a potentially dangerous or irrational person who is likely to use a weapon irresponsibly. It sounds to me like someone denied employment based on a picture of them handling a samurai sword online could sue for defamation of character. Unless the context is clearly illegal or irresponsible in the extreme it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with owning or posing with weapons.