31 Responses

  1. [...] at least potentially. As was highlighted on Friday by a report published on the Distributed Marketing blog, companies are seeking [...]

  2. [...] more: Evolving Rules for Social Media Compliance and Privacy … ← Market Your Business on the Internet | TopDocumentPublisherBlog.info Daniel Lubetzky » [...]

  3. Mike Wise June 11, 2011 at 10:49 am | | Reply

    Important content on Social Tech. Thanks for sharing. My first thought is that these concepts will drive A-list employees into the freelance crowd, thereby leaving employers with B and C workers, thereby adversely impacting the health of the enterprise. 2nd thought: Rather than control, restrict, contain, etc., won’t the savviest companies invest in Social Tech training, education, and strategy development? An interesting related article on stages of enterprise Social Tech adoption… http://socialmediatoday.com/billives/305522/five-stages-social-media-maturity

    1. HRperson
      HRperson
      June 13, 2011 at 10:41 pm | | Reply

      I completely agree with Mike.

      The best employees will not accept undue monitoring of their private activites and peceived or real restriction of their ability to seek new employers. Not to mention that these A-list employees are probably not the ones posting irresponsible stuff on whatever social media. Combined with today’s move to “free agent nation” and self-employment, this means the employers will lose these top employees. I for example would never accept employment with a company who wants to monitor and approve/reject my activity on LinkedIn.

      And,which companies have enough staff to enforce such an activity of reading every social media post of all employees and approving them before they go out ??? Maybe this would help reduce unemployment though… ;-)

      Education, training and positive reinforcement are a much better way to go. Of course, monitoring if an employee is reported as having a negative behaviour online is aother matter and employees defaming their employer should be sanctioned. But the monitoring and control should not be automatic and /or permanent.

      Of course, the situation is different for people hired to peform communication activities for the company, such as a content editor for the intranet / extranet, a social media employee, a corporate blogger…. A solution can be to create corporate accounts not personal ones for peforming these activites. Or assigning them to outsourcing through agencies, contractors etc.

      1. Distributed Marketing June 14, 2011 at 1:51 am | | Reply

        I find it hard to disagree with Mike most of the time — very smart man. And you’re certainly right about the freelance nature of the economy. So this is an area that is going to change and evolve over time, as different interests have to come to terms with the new communications channels. With regulators defining some social media outlets as “public appearances” (Twitter, Facebook), and others as “sales literature” (LinkedIn, landing pages, some forums and chatrooms), with different rules for what can and can’t be said in each one if you work in a regulated industry, it’s hard to see where this is going to come out right now.

        Thanks for the great comment!

    2. Distributed Marketing June 14, 2011 at 1:53 am | | Reply

      Good points, Mike. You’re usually right about these things — I hope you’re wrong about the exodus of talent from insurance and financial services, though. We all lose if the best and brightest opt out! The industry needs new young talent to replace old folks like me, I think. Thanks for the comment!

  4. [...] week, Distributed Marketing published a report that might worry anyone who uses LinkedIn as a way to network and job search within their industry. [...]

  5. [...] week, Distributed Marketing published a report that competence worry anyone who uses LinkedIn as a approach to network and pursuit hunt within [...]

  6. [...] Distributed Marketing blog asked for comments on Actiance's LinkedIn monitoring capability from executives across a number of industries. It is [...]

  7. [...] Distributed Marketing blog asked for comments on Actiance's LinkedIn monitoring capability from executives across a number of industries. It is [...]

    1. Distributed Marketing June 14, 2011 at 8:57 am | | Reply

      Actually, we have no problem with Actiance’s service — it’s needed in FINRA-regulated companies. We asked experts for the legal, HR, privacy and other issues surrounding the topic in general, since the question of LinkedIn monitoring is sure to come up sooner or later in other industries that are not regulated by FINRA.

      Thanks for the link!

  8. Courtney Hunt June 14, 2011 at 8:50 am | | Reply

    Sound advice and good insights from various experts, both in the post and in the comments.

    Coincidentally, I wrote a blog post on the subject yesterday, which is intended as a guide for employers. Here’s a link:

    http://www.sminorgs.net/2011/06/social-media-data-ownership-recommendations-for-employers.html

    I will also include a link back to this piece in my post, as a great reference for additional insights.

    Courtney Hunt, PhD
    Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community

    1. Distributed Marketing June 14, 2011 at 8:58 am | | Reply

      Wow — great tips for employers in your blog post, Courtney! Thanks for sharing them!

  9. Shawn E. Tuma June 14, 2011 at 2:48 pm | | Reply

    Great job on the article! I really enjoyed both the body of the article as well as the contributions from the other commentators.

    1. Distributed Marketing June 14, 2011 at 2:53 pm | | Reply

      Thanks, Shawn — I couldn’t have done it without your great content. But what are you doing working this week? Didn’t you just get married? You should be out having fun somewhere! Regards, Deb

      1. Shawn E. Tuma June 14, 2011 at 3:04 pm | | Reply

        Thank you Deb!
        Now that is a very good question — I did get married and I am working. Crazy, right? Well the truth is, there is a good reason. It was the wife’s choice and she wanted to schedule the honeymoon trip for August which means that, in essence, I get the newlywed honeymoon period now and get another honeymoon in August — and who in the world would ever pass up an opportunity to have two honeymoons?

        1. Distributed Marketing June 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm | | Reply

          Well, a long time ago, I married my business partner. We couldn’t afford for both of us to be gone from the office for a long honeymoon, so we had a “serial honeymoon” — long weekends tacked on to the ends of business trips over the first year of our marriage. We can honestly say we honeymooned in Palm Springs, New York, Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, Niagara Falls (Toronto), and New Orleans. Worked for us! But you definitely get good husband points for taking some time off when you can! Regards, Deb

  10. jruffer June 15, 2011 at 2:09 am | | Reply

    I find this very entertaining that you are missing the big picture. Spending all this time and money on compliance does not make you secure. You should not have a warm and fuzzy feeling that your software vendor just made you compliant with its new shiny coin tool. We find that at least 5% of fortune 500 linkedin profiles are fake or EvilTwins. “All your linkedin profiles belong to us” This is not important, yet! Who is really running the profile? Is it a hacker or really the CEO/Board? Did you even bother to check? None of these software vendors bother to tell you if the profile was created by the actual user. The only thing they could tell you is the person that leaked that information or put you out of compliance was John Doe our CEO from his iPhone. Then you find out John Doe doesn’t even know what linkedin profile means. Now, how much did you pay for all of that?

    ” Until recently few companies had LinkedIn pages” umm, not true, linkedin has been auto populating pages for quite a while. It is only recently they allowed you to “edit” these pages. Linkedin has been breaking company policies or compliance with this auto page feature for some time now. Example: St Jude’s policy is an associate is not allowed to publish that they work for the children hospital. Now go search for the company St. Jude on linkedin. Social Media providers are very behind in security and everyone is worried about compliance…what a joke!
    You should read some of the posts on http://www.socialmediasecurity.com to help you revise some of your compliance or thoughts on true security. Read how we are penetrating your corporations using social media. How many IT/Security departments even know that the company has set up a Linkedin, Twitter, or Facebook page or worse using the Facebook page for eCommerce? What happens when someone takes over that “buy now” button? Are you still in compliance? I think a lot of these “software vendors” are giving you FALSE HOPE. Being compliant does not make your secure! Yes, compliance should be driving security but all we see is a bunch of money wasted on paper and over priced url scanning. These compliance companies wouldn’t know security if it kicked them in the face.

    @jruffer

    1. Distributed Marketing June 16, 2011 at 7:09 am | | Reply

      You’re right that compliance and security aren’t the same thing. And you’re also correct that “auto populated” pages aren’t the same as a company-created page. Thanks for the comment and tweet! — @distmarketing

      1. jruffer June 16, 2011 at 1:35 pm | | Reply

        Thank you for posting. It is truly a fight to get the C level to understand that because they just spent $X on their compliance vendor software it doesn’t make them secure. It is actually starting to make me dislike everything about compliance because they are getting the security budget and we get blamed when an attack is successful. I might be preaching to the choir but great article, I am just disturbed that people are yet again fighting the wrong battle just like with PCI and HIPAA. You are in my prayers and thank you again.

    2. Shawn E. Tuma June 16, 2011 at 6:40 pm | | Reply

      @jruffer, I am fascinated by your comments on this article. While I do believe @distmarketing is correct that there is a difference between compliance and security, I believe the real world, non-privacy related issues of greatest importance are those of security, not compliance, as you indicate. Privacy issues concerning social media and the interaction between employers and employees is a whole other topic and my comments below are not intended to address those. Having said that, …

      Yes, social media does add a new wrinkle to compliance issues for companies that varies in degree proportionate to the level of scrutiny for each company’s particular industry. We see this in the legal field where the vast majority of lawyers who are speaking and writing on social media issues are focusing their attention on instructing lawyers on how they can use social media while avoiding the ethical landmines so often associated with advertising and confidentiality issues. I work with technology related legal issues including social media and I agree, this is an issue that lawyers need to understand but it’s really not that big of an issue– certainly not as big of an issue as people are making it out to be.

      The same is true for how so many (of us) lawyers are now trying to build an entire practice out of advising businesses on social media practices, policies, and compliance issues. There are issues that need to be addressed and clients do need to have legal guidance on these issues but, honestly, I’m not so sure that they rise to the complexity and, certainly the importance, that everyone is making it out to be. While noncompliance may get a company into trouble, in my view, these issues pale in comparison to the threats companies face from security and data breach.

      I have RSS feeds set up so that I can follow many different topics that interest me and one of them is a stream of updates for current security and hacker news. I cannot keep up with it. There are literally hundreds of updates a day. Every single day it seems we are learning about new companies who systems are being breached and whose private customer information is being exposed. They range from the biggest companies to the smallest and over the last week we see where the United States Senate, an arm of the FBI, and now, of all things, the freaking CIA! What is worse is that, in Texas under the current data breach law, the statutory penalty alone is $1,000 per person per breach when their personal data is compromised. Right now the Texas Comptroller is facing a $3.5 billion lawsuit over such a data breach! Now, while wearing my “litigator hat” we often like to talk in terms of “bet the company litigation” but, the truth is, most compliance related penalties that businesses may face are mere drops in the proverbial bucket when compared to the tsunami they face for security related issues. This is true “bet the company” stuff and it needs to be taken very seriously.

      1. Distributed Marketing June 17, 2011 at 10:27 am | | Reply

        Shawn — I come out of a security background (founder’s equity in Zone Labs paid for my personal piece of paradise in New Zealand), and one of the things I’ve been doing since 1985 is following the trail of litigation relating to security breaches. (1985 was the first time a federal court heard a lawsuit over a hacker breach, I believe.) You and @jruffer are right on all counts. But the readers of this blog are more interested in compliance than security because of the personal liability associated with compliance in highly regulated industries like finance and insurance. Nobody wants to be the test case for felony or lose-your-license misdemeanor charges relating to use of social media — especially not if the compliance breach was caused by a third party. Yet that’s what can happen in some instances here, which is why that Actiance won’t be the only company to provide intercept, monitoring, and approval technology for the affected industries. We could write a whole book on this — and maybe you and I should do just that! Regards, Deb

      2. Shawn E. Tuma June 17, 2011 at 9:02 pm | | Reply

        Ahh yes Deb, I agree, we did get a little off target on the compliance issue and there is no doubt that no one wants to have themselves made into an example … and I sure as heck don’t want to the the one advising them in a way that gets them into that position! On to more important matters, however, I have been dying to write a book on these issues so let’s get started! Have a great weekend!
        -SET

  11. [...] week, Distributed Marketing published a report that might worry anyone who uses LinkedIn as a way to network [...]

  12. [...] Gangemi interviewed the blog’s editor and reported on the widespread response to a recent blog post that “went viral” and was picked up by many publications around the [...]

  13. [...] reporter Jeffrey Gangemi interviewed me and reported on the widespread response to a recent blog post on the Distributed Marketing Blog that “went viral” and was picked up by many publications [...]

  14. [...] title when you could click on one that sounds cool? The one that worked best for me personally was, Who Owns Your LinkedIn Profile?  (Hint: It might not be you.)  Others that have done relatively well included 70-year Old Grandmother Fights Porn Download [...]

  15. Austin Social Marketing Agency September 2, 2011 at 11:01 am | | Reply

    Great article and comments! I hope this helps raise awareness of the exposure people and businesses have in their social media site content and postings — and the need to closely monitor and manage this content for Reputation Management.

    Most colleges and universities are now counseling their students to scrub their Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Myspace. etc. accounts in anticipation of scrutiny by prospective employers. The problem is — anything posted on the Internet can not be erased for certain; it may have been saved by someone, and there are several Internet archive services that may contain content you have deleted.

  16. [...] Evolving rules for social media compliance & privacy [...]

  17. Who Owns Your LinkedIn Contacts? November 2, 2011 at 6:03 am |

    [...] addthis_share = [];}Who owns your LinkedIn profile? (Hint:  it might not be you.) That was the headline on a post on this blog back in June, 2011 — and the answer we arrived at with help from a number of [...]

  18. Top Posts from Our First Year December 28, 2011 at 11:08 am |

    [...] 1.    Who Owns Your LinkedIn Profile?  [...]

Leave a Reply

Privacy Policy