Big Brother vs. Social Media vs. Basil Fawlty

Secret cameras, secret Web utilities tracking employees' Web use, secret phone recording and IM monitoring: that's creepy. That's BIG BROTHER: the Orwellian 1984 nightmare. But bosses reading your tweets and Facebook? What's creepy about that isn't that bosses might do it, it's the rest of us complaining about it.

Frankly, my dear, stop complaining. Look up the definition of the verb "publish." Because social media is publishing. Don't be unclear on the concept.

Last week Deloitte LLP announced survey results: more than half the employees asked said employers should stay out of their Twitter and Facebook posts. And more than half the employers said exactly the opposite, that they have the right to read your stuff. Apparently few do -- who has the time? -- but they can.

Kudos to Deloitte LLP for doing the survey. It's a growing issue. I noticed about a month ago, posting on SmartBlog, Mary Ellen Slater Drew McClellan asked: Is your social media presence really yours? She added:

A high-level ad exec puts a multimillion-dollar account at risk because of his tweet.  A long-time Eagles football team employee gets fired because of a Facebook update.  A student teacher is denied her teaching certificate for posting a picture of herself titled "drunk pirate" to her MySpace page.

Don't tell me that your employer has no right to access, judge or discipline you based on your social media activities. It's happening. And I suspect it's only the beginning.

And I agree with Mary Ellen Drew, and with the employers, and I kind of like this new development. I think it's about authenticity. And transparency. And it's not a bad thing. The world might need it.

I get privacy. I was a teenager in the 1960s, so of course I understand why we want protection from surveillance and rights to privacy. We grew up fearing the 1984 Big Brother nightmare. I don't want the government or an employer listening into my conversations, putting me on hidden video, or even knowing what library books I read. That's all the quintessential none of their business.

But privacy has absolutely nothing to do with publishing. It makes me angry. It reminds me of people complaining about caller ID on my phone -- you're intruding into my world when you call me, so don't block your number. If you do, I won't answer. What's next, blocking the peephole in the hotel door because it violates the privacy of the person outside knocking?

We -- we users, email addicts, Twitter lovers, website browsers, et al. -- should have figured this out 10 or 15 years ago when we got immersed in email. Email was the ground breaker. It feels private, but isn't. You think your email is private? Somebody minding your mail server can read it. And courts can demand it as evidence.

My favorite answer to this question is authenticity. Authenticity is being the same person most of the time, not different people in different contexts. For example, in his intriguing Me 2.0 book, Generation Y personal branding expert Dan Schawbel recommends using the same picture and same bio for every place you present yourself in the Twitter-Facebook-LinkedIn world.

I love the John Cleese character Basil Fawlty of Fawlty Towers. There's great comedy as Basil tries to keep track of which lies he's told to which characters. Isn't that the direct opposite of authenticity? And is that who you want to be?

Samuel Johnson who once said we are all just acting out our favorite character in fiction. I like that idea. I think I see it in action a lot. And to follow it along into this new context, perhaps it's like suggesting that you should choose which character that is, and stick with that one.

Or, to make it really simple, be yourself.  One person, the same person, everywhere. Novel idea.

Follow Tim Berry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Timberry

Comments

[CosmicChaos]

What if you have a health condition that you are trying to get more information on from your friends and your employer or potential employer sees that and decides that you are a risk due to your health so you don't get promoted or you get let go before your health condition gets too bad?

[AmeriGus]

We should all assume Facebook is data mining, collecting pictures, messages and contacts to use against us when we get older and seek more serious jobs. One co-founder Peter Thiel is accused of some pretty creepy politics, and if I was a hedge fund investor, I might sift through your info to see what value can be squeezed out.

We all know MySpace is owned by News Corp, nuff said.

Use Facebook and MySpace carefully...the reason these sites took off is because Americans wanted to promote themselves as "stars" to become famous, get dates, make friends and show off. Fine if you're a musician, artist or growing a business clientele, but my middle school students use the sites to pretend they are older, creating alter egos and toy with adults.

[argyle]

Fine, but don't expect me to live up to some corporate automaton's notion of normal behavior as derived from the fine art of becoming popular in eleventh grade.

It's not about privacy. It's about a persons work being judged by factors that aren't related to the work.

[CroatianCritter]

Your point about the internet being public is correct but your idea that people should be punished/disciplined for their behavior is wrong. Unless there is evidence of a crime online that violates other people's rights, it is none of my business what people do in their spare time. My job has me for 40 hours a day and I do everything needed to fulfill my job during that time. If I go and cheat on my wife in my spare time, is it any of their business knowing this information? Any private institution should know nothing about my behavior away from the job. We are a NATION OF LITTLE FASCISTS. Everyone refuses to accept other people's behaviors and insists on enforcing their will and control over as many people as they can. That is why cops use speed limit laws to intimidate individuals, or we force you to purchase auto insurance despite costs being out of control and why we have our government and corporations telling us how we are supposed to invest, fight disease, or live our lives. If I want to post a picture of myself hiring a prostitute in Thailand or eating hallucogenic mushrooms in South America, I have that right as a FREE individual to do this.

[medicontheedge]

if you don't want people to know your business, don't expose your business.

it really is that simple....

[breakingpoint]

anything and everything you say or put on the web stays there forever.

[sailhawk]

The rules are simple:
- if you want a slight chance of privacy, use an alias.
- if you want a better chance of privacy, use paper, pencil, and a stamp.
- if you want actual privacy, say nothing or speak quietly in a noisy room!
The NSA cann - and does - intercept any electronic communication. Unencrypted wifi and Bluetooth are information colanders. Besides, publikly posting comments means you had no desire for privacy in the first place... just follow the 'always wear clean underwear' rule - especially if you are using your employer's hardware!
All that said, we badly need an 'Information Age Bill of Rights' that says.
Any and all information that can reasonably be said to pertain or apply to and individual is, by definition, the property of that individual, and without a warrant may only be intercepted, stored, analyzed, used, or distributed with the express consent of that individual or their legal guardian.'
This is the only way to get in front of technology that changes daily!

[ramblin jack]

funny that many of us read 1984 and now we see it everywehre, forget about it coming it is here and although I think what we say on line should be as protected as 1st amendment rights and have certain privacy rights the fact is that the way the world is wired today if one has a phone, bank account, pc or is somehow registered in some list that can be accessed, you have lost privacy. Why have different names and profiles? well you answered that. With the same nic profile etc as everything else in you life why not just join and be a card paying member of big brother inc. He sounds like the cheerleader of double speak yeah we aren't free until we are all enslaved in the system then no worries hey it is good for you no hassles just compliance. Do what you are told and no problem. Nah

[VasuMurti]

With all due respect to Samuel Johnson, actors and/or directors don't have hidden cameras following them into the toilet. Having lived unwillingly under electronic surveillance for the past 20 years, it's my conviction we DO have a fundamental right to privacy.

[inmyhumbleopinion]

There's a simple answer to all of this: adjust your settings on Facebook and Twitter. If only your friends can see your posts (and not friends of friends or entire networks), then it shouldn't be a problem. And make sure you don't befriend your bosses or clients. That said, I always live by the rule that if it's not something you wouldn't want your mother to see, don't post it. :-)

[moonflowerjewelry]

my niece had her kids taken away for a couple of reasons. she thought i was nuts to tell her to watch out for what she and her friends (and her mom) post on my space... her dad was all about the 420 and nudie girl pics. her mom's friends had church of satan posted all over, too. it is nonsense to think that "the authorities" don't monitor what we make public.

[Maxiesid]

Bull. When I am at work I am paid to do a job. If I do the job well, that is the only thing that my employer needs from me. What I do when they are not paying me is none of their business. With the exception that for completely obvious reasons, they would need to know if I have a criminal record. Other than that, if I am married or not, if I have children or not, if I have some health related concerns that do not affect the performance of my job or make me a danger to others that I work with it is not their concern, they don't need to know my bank balance, my credit rating, or anything else about my personal life ... who I date and when, if I smoke (not on the job) if I drink (again, not on the job) none of that is anything they have a right to know about me. They didn't BUY me, or marry me or adopt me. In exchange for the hourly rate, I will do what they have tasked me with. Period. (unless you agree ahead of time, in a contract, then you have sold the right to be upset if your employer browses through your social sites). I will be really glad when society's pendulum swings back away from this extreme right wing behavior to the place where employees were treated like assets to a company instead of like slave labor.

[LittleLiberal]

...but I think the exception is if you're doing something in public (or on a public site, something anyone could easily Google) you're basically putting it out there for anyone to judge. It's the same thing if you ran down Main Street naked. Your employer might not look fondly upon that.

Now, I would have a problem with my employer peeking in my windows at night or listening to my private phone calls at home, but those are private instances.

[desertson]

I agree with everything you argue, however, posting your questionable behavior on the internet (a public forum) shows something to your employer that may, in fact, make them squeamish....poor judgement.

Any job requires a certain amount of honesty, integrity and sound judgement. Especially in these times of high unemployment and people competing so fiercely for a shrinking number of jobs. Your boss may just decide s/he doesn't want to take any chances with someone who would advertise their drunken sexcapades openly and hire somebody they feel more comfortable with.

[taikan]

Maxiesid's point is that the only time the employer needs to be concerned about an employee's actions and/or judgment is in connection with the employee's work performance. An individual may exercise good judgment and make good decisions when at work or otherwise acting on behalf of his/her employer, but make bad decisions in personal life. Why should that be of any concern to the employer? If a stockbroker consistently provides customers with good advice regarding the stock market, why should his/her employer, or clients, care what he/she does outside the office?

Having said all that, one should be aware that many employers in fact do not confine their concerns to work performance. Thus, one should realize that it may be risky to publish any information that might cause a negative reaction on the part of one's employer.

[littlepitcher]

In many states, it is illegal to practice employment discrimination based on any behavior off-the-job which is legal. Such laws were devised to protect smokers' employment, in tobacco-producing states, but obviously could be utilized as a basis for litigation based on legal behaviors or activities published on Facebook et al.

Meanwhile, we have a recession. Until the market loosens sufficiently to give us freedom of choice and until health benefits are universally affordable, WE ARE SLAVE LABOR. Protect yourself accordingly.

[Mary Slayter]

Thanks for highlighting our SmartBlog post! I wish I could take the credit, but that guest post was actually written by Drew McLellan, a member of our SmartBrief on Social Media Advisory Board.

[Tim Berry - Huffpost Blogger]

Sorry Mary, and thanks for catching that. It was a good post, congrats to both of you. Good blog too!

[disgustedcitizen]

If you are dumb enough to put private info and pictures of yourself out where ANYBODY can read it, then you have no complaint if someone you don't want to read it does. Keep your personal life to yourself.

[WeAreTheBorg]

I pretty much am the same person at work and on Facebook. But it does bother me that an employer can look at my Facebook account and make decisions about me based on my private life.
As we all know from e-mail, it is all too easy to mistake intentions and meaning because there is no face-to-face interaction. No body language, no intonation, nothing. I think it's rather risky on the part of employers.
However, if you post pictures of yourself as a drunken pirate, you should consider the possible consequences. I certainly wouldn't do that (I don;t drink alcohol, but that's not the reason). It almost seems to be asking for it, IMHO.

[PaiaGirl]

If it is on Facebook, it isn't your "private life". It is your public life.

[desertson]

Exactly, PiaiaGirl. YOU made it public, not your _______(fill in the blank).

The right to privacy is not the same thing as the right to anonymity. There is no right to anonymity and by posting somethiong to a public site, you've broken your own identity and privacy. That's the whole concept of the internet....it's available to anybody with a computer.

Grow up!

[athenap]

The student teacher shouldn't have had her license yanked for doing something legal after hours and on her own time (unless she wasn't legal when doing it, in which case...probably not the smartest idea).

But then again, I also have objections to potential employers pulling your credit rating for no good reason.

However...this is where people can be tried and convicted and eviscerated in the court of public opinion even when they're perfectly within their legal rights to do something or say something. Because, yanno...it's just business. I, too, will be happy when employees are assets again, and the line between work and not-work comes back into vogue with real social change to back it up.

All that said, my internet persona is pretty much not connected to my real name. But I also don't post my embarrassing photos, either.