Companies Trying to Catch 'Cyber Slackers' May Be Watching Every Move You Make On Social Media

Remember that hazy trip to Cabo San Lucas with old friends a few years ago? Those margaritas were huge. You just had to post photos of them on Facebook, along with a few other Kodak moments. Then you mostly forgot about them.

Even if you don’t recall all of the sordid details from that weekend of debauchery, your employer may know all about it. That’s because a new company called Social Intelligence billing itself as a social media private eye will observe your Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other online accounts on behalf of employers to make certain you’re not a liability.

Background checks involving criminal records and credit histories are typical and even expected of many major employers responsible for children, nursing homes or public safety.

But the Santa Barbara, Calif.-based company takes this concept to a new level offering an automated tool that mines social media content for troubling signs. Search filters can be customized “to reflect corporate culture,” and additional manual reviews are conducted by “social media experts.”

A display tells the human resources manager in your workplace how many “negative” hits are uncovered, placing the names of both job applicants and active employees next to red flags like “drugs/drug lingo,” “gangs,” “poor judgment” and “demonstrating potentially violent behavior.”

Social Intelligence is the latest in an ever-expanding movement by both corporations and government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, to use new communications tools for surveillance purposes. Some of the most provocative examples yet emerged only in recent weeks.

The trend raises fresh questions about how standards enforcing privacy online can withstand the rush of data about you and everyone else that courses through the Internet.

After finally landing a job, the information gathering has only just begun. From there, Social Intelligence will carry out near “real-time surveillance” of your behavior with screenshots and customizable reports used to document activity and keep the front office informed. Its marketing materials play into larger fears every employer could have. According to the company’s Web site:

Once employees have been hired, their online behavior poses a possible threat to your company. Employees may criticize managers or coworkers on a social networking site, post questionable photos on a blog, or regularly update personal sites while on the clock. … Consistent monitoring creates awareness and strict adherence among employees, thereby reducing "cyber slacking," fraud and negative company publicity.

Internet.com pointed out Sept. 29 that Social Intelligence doesn’t actively “friend” users to surreptitiously access more private posts online. The goal is to shield companies from job seekers and employees who turn out to be dangerous or untrustworthy. Litigation following violent episodes in the workplace can hinge on warning signs an institution may have been aware of in advance. But clearly bloodshed isn’t the only thing Social Intelligence is promising to help prevent.

Government investigators, meanwhile, will quietly friend you and more generally use social media to seek out evidence of possible security threats and spy on political organizations. New documents unearthed recently in Pennsylvania show that state homeland security officials used Twitter accounts to watch people who had not violated any laws, including elderly anti-war protesters linked to Quaker activism.

The news came shortly after Pennsylvania’s homeland security director resigned amid revelations that the state paid a private contractor thousands of dollars to monitor gay and lesbian groups, environmentalists and even a nonprofit tied to the governor. Findings from the surveillance were compiled in intelligence reports ostensibly designed to inform authorities about potential terrorism. But the public reacted angrily. Gov. Ed Rendell apologized, calling the intel-gathering “ludicrous” and insisting he wasn’t aware of it.