I haven't been to the Jobcentre in years, but last time I was there was looking for admin/clerical work and was advised on a few relevant vacancies by staff. In Birmingham, Warwickshire and Shropshire last week, women looking for these types of jobs were also advised by Jobcentre staff - but rather than office work, were handed information about sex lines! The company recruiting, Faceclick, are offering up to £700 a week if you strip off, plonk your bits in front of a webcam and have sexually explicit chats with punters. Naturally, it all came as a bit of a shock to the jobseekers, especially with words such as "fetish", "Just 18 legal", and "role play" being mentioned in the adverts. Sky News HD readers leapt into the comments section, with predictable results - shock and horror from most women, smut from the men, and lots of blaming the government for the downfall in society due to advertising sex. Blah blah blah. There were one or two women boasting that they had similar jobs, and were the best they'd ever had, and a few more "liberated" people who couldn't see the harm in advertising adult jobs in the Jobcentre. There was also some concern about whether benefits would be affected if, say, someone was ungrateful enough to turn down such an opportunity. Prior to 2003, the Jobcentre wouldn't allow recruiters to advertise work within the sex industry. However, Ann Summers sucessfully took their case to court, and set a precedent for advertising such roles. The general consensus, though, is that selling lacy knickers and a few sex toys is worlds apart from working in the porn industry, and the DWP is taking advice about withdrawing their Faceclick adverts after pressure from Mediawatch- UK.
It's not the first time the Jobcentre has landed itself in hot water thanks to its policy on sexy jobs. In July last year, they carried an advert for a porn TV presenter - applicants needed to have good communication skills for explicit chat, and be happy to work semi-naked. This too sparked outrage, not surprisingly. In 2007, adverts were placed in Byker and Gateshead branches by a company specialising in dominatrices, looking to recruit escorts for £200 a shift. Due to complaints, the ad was withdrawn - but not until ten girls had happily signed up to the agency, tempted by the cash and the whips. And in 2006, there was a Scottish scandal over a gamut of lap dancing jobs being openly advertised as a viable job option.
Although the Jobcentre has an extremely liberal stance on advertising sex industry jobs, seeking women for X-rated work, they aren't as generous with "normal" job adverts. In February this year, a salon owner in Newcastle had her advert for a junor stylist refused by Jobcentre officials - for being discriminatory. She was told to drop the word 'junior' if she wanted her advert to be shown. It gets even more ridiculous. Back in January, a recruiter looking for a "reliable and hard-working" cleaner was told that her wording discriminated against unreliable people. The Jobcentre wouldn't comment on the conversation in question, but stressed that the advert was posted on its website afterwards.
The whole question of what is acceptable - and legal - for the Jobcentre to advertise is an interesting one. People seem to feel that, as a government-run agency, it should take a moral stance on the types of vacancies made available. Legally, however, the Jobcentre has had its hands tied after the victory of Ann Summers over the ban on sex industry adverts. The DWP have to be careful about discrimination, but the Jobcentre rules seem to be going a bit far. On the other hand, recruiters advertising elsewhere have to be careful how they word adverts, in order to avoid discrimination. Surely advertising for female sex workers is discriminatory, both towards women and men. Women because they are being handed the inappropriate adverts - and men? Men aren't offered the chance to apply! Yet there seems to be no legal standpoint over this, unlike sexual discrimination in other types of jobs. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Anyway, I'm off down the Jobcentre after lunch. £700 a week sounds ok to me...
Monday, 17 May 2010
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Snog Marry Avoid
One day to go until the General Election, and you'd think that everyone has decided who they are going to vote for. It ain't necessarily so. The good old swing voters are still undecided, and last minute changes of mind (and heart) are possible over the next 34 hours. And it's women - again - who make up the majority of the swing voters, and who the three main parties are desperate to convince before time runs out.
During the 1997 General Election, pollsters coined a phrase for the typical woman swing voter - "Worcester Woman". These middle-income female swing voters living in a West Midlands marginal were part of a heavily targetted group whose votes were crucial. Helen Witherick, one of the so-called "Worcester Women", told The Independent three weeks before polling day that she would probably vote Conservative. Tracked down years later, she now admits that she changed her mind at the last minute, and voted for Blair. Out of ten Worcestershire women interviewed who were all Tories before Blair, none now say they will go back to voting Conservative. This group - which can be extended throughout Britain into other middle-income female rich areas - are still a force to be reckoned with when it comes to persuading them to make up their minds.
This Election has become known as the "Mumsnet Election", due to the massive influence that the members of the online forums will have on the outcome of the next government. Many are still undecided, and there is still time to sway them either way - according to Associate Editor Catherine Hanley, "Women don't tend to vote on party lines", rather, on policies affecting them and their families. Whilst women make up over 50% of the voting population, they only account for 19.5% of UK MPs, with only 4 on the Cabinet and 7 in Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. They are also more likely to wait later to decide and cast their vote and less likely than men to have an attachment to any party. This is why they are the key swing voters, especially in the marginals.
So how do we decide who to vote FOR? The Mail reported that polls in late 2009 showed that Labour were likely to win if only women vote... but they are also more likely to change their minds and vote Tory. Women aren't as impressed by David Cameron as much as men are, but at the same time are disappointed with Gordon Brown. In a recent Red Magazine poll, over half of the 2000 women questioned hadn't yet made up their minds. Women are cited as being swayed over policies on public services (NHS and schools), tax breaks for married couples and climate change, says Viv Groskop in The Mail. A survey from NetMums shows that a third of its members would vote for Cameron, with less than 1 in 5 going for Brown.
The party leaders have all launched a strike offensive in their quest to get women on side and on board this election. Whilst the usual party political broadcasts and Newsnight interviews have still been taking place, Cameron, Clegg and Brown (sounds like a comedy trio) have jumped on the media bandwagon big style to pimp their parties. Buffed and scrubbed, humble and engaging, dynamic (Brown excepted) and smooth... they have all been pasting their faces across TV, the press and the internet. Interviews with Piers Morgan, lunches and photo shoots with Glamour magazine, and interviews with Grazia have all pushed the three men into the spotlight with women voters, especially the 18-35 year group, many of whom will be voting for the first time.
So, how TO choose? With many of the polls suggesting a close-run first place, and the Tories pushing us to vote for them to avoid a hung parliament, for those of us as yet still undecided (yours truly included), what is going to make us settle for one of the three chirpy chappies asking us to support them? We can go for the policies most important to mums - extended nursery provision and flexible working; or most important to the Townswomens Guild - immigration, post office closures and mixed-sex hospital wards. Some of us will vote for the policies that we feel would work best for the country, some for those that seem best for us and our families, and some for the ones that might benefit our local communities.
There's a perfect solution to this dilemma facing us lady swing voters... Snog, marry, avoid. We tried this in the office today, and I won't tell you the results due to not wanting to swing the vote - all I can say is that nobody wanted to snog Gordon. Obviously, the results depend on who you'd rather have running the country - the man you want to play tonsil hockey with, or the one who'd make husband material. That's for you to decide. But go on and try it... you know you want to.
(For some sensible ideas to make your last-minute voting decision, try www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com or www.takethequiz.co.uk)
During the 1997 General Election, pollsters coined a phrase for the typical woman swing voter - "Worcester Woman". These middle-income female swing voters living in a West Midlands marginal were part of a heavily targetted group whose votes were crucial. Helen Witherick, one of the so-called "Worcester Women", told The Independent three weeks before polling day that she would probably vote Conservative. Tracked down years later, she now admits that she changed her mind at the last minute, and voted for Blair. Out of ten Worcestershire women interviewed who were all Tories before Blair, none now say they will go back to voting Conservative. This group - which can be extended throughout Britain into other middle-income female rich areas - are still a force to be reckoned with when it comes to persuading them to make up their minds.
This Election has become known as the "Mumsnet Election", due to the massive influence that the members of the online forums will have on the outcome of the next government. Many are still undecided, and there is still time to sway them either way - according to Associate Editor Catherine Hanley, "Women don't tend to vote on party lines", rather, on policies affecting them and their families. Whilst women make up over 50% of the voting population, they only account for 19.5% of UK MPs, with only 4 on the Cabinet and 7 in Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. They are also more likely to wait later to decide and cast their vote and less likely than men to have an attachment to any party. This is why they are the key swing voters, especially in the marginals.
So how do we decide who to vote FOR? The Mail reported that polls in late 2009 showed that Labour were likely to win if only women vote... but they are also more likely to change their minds and vote Tory. Women aren't as impressed by David Cameron as much as men are, but at the same time are disappointed with Gordon Brown. In a recent Red Magazine poll, over half of the 2000 women questioned hadn't yet made up their minds. Women are cited as being swayed over policies on public services (NHS and schools), tax breaks for married couples and climate change, says Viv Groskop in The Mail. A survey from NetMums shows that a third of its members would vote for Cameron, with less than 1 in 5 going for Brown.
The party leaders have all launched a strike offensive in their quest to get women on side and on board this election. Whilst the usual party political broadcasts and Newsnight interviews have still been taking place, Cameron, Clegg and Brown (sounds like a comedy trio) have jumped on the media bandwagon big style to pimp their parties. Buffed and scrubbed, humble and engaging, dynamic (Brown excepted) and smooth... they have all been pasting their faces across TV, the press and the internet. Interviews with Piers Morgan, lunches and photo shoots with Glamour magazine, and interviews with Grazia have all pushed the three men into the spotlight with women voters, especially the 18-35 year group, many of whom will be voting for the first time.
So, how TO choose? With many of the polls suggesting a close-run first place, and the Tories pushing us to vote for them to avoid a hung parliament, for those of us as yet still undecided (yours truly included), what is going to make us settle for one of the three chirpy chappies asking us to support them? We can go for the policies most important to mums - extended nursery provision and flexible working; or most important to the Townswomens Guild - immigration, post office closures and mixed-sex hospital wards. Some of us will vote for the policies that we feel would work best for the country, some for those that seem best for us and our families, and some for the ones that might benefit our local communities.
There's a perfect solution to this dilemma facing us lady swing voters... Snog, marry, avoid. We tried this in the office today, and I won't tell you the results due to not wanting to swing the vote - all I can say is that nobody wanted to snog Gordon. Obviously, the results depend on who you'd rather have running the country - the man you want to play tonsil hockey with, or the one who'd make husband material. That's for you to decide. But go on and try it... you know you want to.
(For some sensible ideas to make your last-minute voting decision, try www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com or www.takethequiz.co.uk)
Monday, 26 April 2010
I want my money back...
An article published in The Times (Online) caught my interest this morning. James, who gave up his home to his ex-wife in a divorce settlement, found out a year later that the daughter he had lavished with love - and maintenance, school fees etc - for seventeen years was not his child. He suspected and accused his wife of having an affair three years into the marriage, which she denied, and at the end of the year their daughter was born. By the time she was ten or eleven, James says that he had doubts about her paternity - but he didn't do anything about it. His wife and he were seperated, although not divorced, by this time. A few years later, he felt he finally had to find out for sure, and had the test done without telling his daughter first. Devastated, and feeling betrayed, James has informed his daughter of the result - and he is taking his wife to court to get back his share in the family home, which he chose to relinquish as part of the divorce settlement. So, effectively, he wants a refund on his daughter, as she is not his and he was been tricked into believing she was (although his ex-wife claims she had no idea he wasn't the father either). One has to wonder if it will be worth his while - not only has he deeply hurt his daughter, he also has a court case costing an estimated £250,000 looming over him - but he claims it's the principle of the matter.
This made me think about refunds, and rebates in recruitment. There is a train of thought here - we're basically dealing with human capital. Most recruitment firms have some sort of rebate period to ensure that, should a candidate not work out, the client has some sort of financial safety net. Rebate periods are usually calculated on a sliding scale, with the average being three months - although some can be for as long as a year. I wonder though, at what point could the issue of a candidate leaving (whether by their own choice, or having to be dismissed) be unclear about which side should bear the costs? It is the job of the recruitment company to nuture the best candidates, rather like James nurtured his daughter, so yes - they should be 1000% sure that the person who moves into a role is suitable, reliable and capable for the job, and if they fail to do so, then the rebate is fairly claimed by the client. On the other hand, with the average company undertaking three interview stages before hiring, the client often has an adequate and lengthy period of time to make the best decision of whom to employ.
James says he was suspicious of his daughter's biological parentage well before he and his wife divorced - so why not have the test done and confirmed before signing over his share of the house to his wife on the premise that his daughter needed to remain secure in her home? Rather like an employer who has doubts at interview stage but chooses to hire anyway, James perhaps should have done a bit more research, and trusted his own judgement before making a costly mistake. So, say, if a company requests a business analyst with excellent SPSS skills for £42k, and the recruiter finds them someone whom they interview and subsequently employ, whose fault is it should they fail to match expectations? The candidate is the only one involved in the process that has nothing to lose if they underperform or simply change their mind about the job. I suppose it's much like a warranty on an electrical item - if you buy a new kettle, which six months later stops working, then John Lewis or whoever will replace it or refund your money. John Lewis genuinely thought it would work when they sold it to you, but it wasn't up to the job after all. In a recruitment sense, this could apply to a candidate - not knowingly mis-sold, but not up to doing the job that they were bought for.
For James, his case revolves around his being deliberately "mis-sold" his daughter. In the recruiter/client relationship, we may have to deal with rebates, disappointments and mistakes - but at least we miss out on the heartache and massive financial cost to both James and his daughter.
This made me think about refunds, and rebates in recruitment. There is a train of thought here - we're basically dealing with human capital. Most recruitment firms have some sort of rebate period to ensure that, should a candidate not work out, the client has some sort of financial safety net. Rebate periods are usually calculated on a sliding scale, with the average being three months - although some can be for as long as a year. I wonder though, at what point could the issue of a candidate leaving (whether by their own choice, or having to be dismissed) be unclear about which side should bear the costs? It is the job of the recruitment company to nuture the best candidates, rather like James nurtured his daughter, so yes - they should be 1000% sure that the person who moves into a role is suitable, reliable and capable for the job, and if they fail to do so, then the rebate is fairly claimed by the client. On the other hand, with the average company undertaking three interview stages before hiring, the client often has an adequate and lengthy period of time to make the best decision of whom to employ.
James says he was suspicious of his daughter's biological parentage well before he and his wife divorced - so why not have the test done and confirmed before signing over his share of the house to his wife on the premise that his daughter needed to remain secure in her home? Rather like an employer who has doubts at interview stage but chooses to hire anyway, James perhaps should have done a bit more research, and trusted his own judgement before making a costly mistake. So, say, if a company requests a business analyst with excellent SPSS skills for £42k, and the recruiter finds them someone whom they interview and subsequently employ, whose fault is it should they fail to match expectations? The candidate is the only one involved in the process that has nothing to lose if they underperform or simply change their mind about the job. I suppose it's much like a warranty on an electrical item - if you buy a new kettle, which six months later stops working, then John Lewis or whoever will replace it or refund your money. John Lewis genuinely thought it would work when they sold it to you, but it wasn't up to the job after all. In a recruitment sense, this could apply to a candidate - not knowingly mis-sold, but not up to doing the job that they were bought for.
For James, his case revolves around his being deliberately "mis-sold" his daughter. In the recruiter/client relationship, we may have to deal with rebates, disappointments and mistakes - but at least we miss out on the heartache and massive financial cost to both James and his daughter.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Has social media killed the cultural star?
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read an article by the BBC, reporting that Shakespeare's romantic tragedy Romeo and Juliet is to be told across Twitter. The joint venture between Channel 4 and the RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company, philistines) will see "Such Tweet Sorrow" - ah, the witticism - being tweeted across the social network in 140-character chunks, due to go live on 12th April. Romeo and Juliet? On Twitter? Who the heck thought that up? Apparently Channel 4 have vowed to double their arts coverage budget to $6m, so maybe they're just trying to save the advertising costs. Will it really work, though? Who is going to see this insane "broadcast" and think, 'Oooh, Shakespeare is really great after all, innit?' I get it, I really do. Channel 4 getting down with the kids, making Romeo and Juliet a funky, real love story, in small doses so that the over-hyped, information overdosed ADHD ridden teenagers can process it, making Shakespeare cool. Of course, then they will be making sure they watch Channel 4 arts programmes, asking their parents for tickets to the RSC's next production of Hamlet, and begging their teachers to let them read a Shakespeare play a week for their GCSE English Literature. I thought all this stuff had been done before. Shorter versions of Shakespeare published for kids, along with stage performances of the same. Baz Lurhman made R&J sexy for a while in the 90's, thanks to Leonardo Di Caprio and Clare Danes as the star-cross'd lovers in his abridged, camp and West Side Story-esque film. How quickly we forget. I'm surprised it's taken so long for someone to dumb down Shakespeare even more, that's all. Will it work? Who knows. Can social networking promote the arts, or will using it in this way serve only to simplify literature, music and art, alienate those amongst us who enjoy these pursuits, and give the kids something else to sneer at?
It seems that people are starting to take seriously the idea that social media CAN be good for the arts. Manchester Digital Development Agency (MDDA)
have been running two-day courses, Understanding Social Media for the Arts, funded by Arts Council England. There is already a social networking site aimed at fans of classical music, www.dilettante.com. According to its founder Juliana Farha, the site aims to "lead the classical uprising", and open classical music up beyond Radio 3, and London concert halls. It is a place where people can not only chat and blog about classical music, but also post their own compositions and work, developing their career as well as friendships with fellow enthusiasts. For arty types, www.myartspace.com is the place to go, to connect with other artists, display work and generally keep in the loop about the contemporary art scene. If you love reading, you can join an online book club at www.shelfari.com, where people gather to see what other people are reading, discover new books and even build a virtual bookshelf to show off your books. Obviously, this may declassify itself as "the arts" if, say, your bookshelf consists entirely of Kerry Katona autobiographies and Dan Brown, but I guess any book is better than nothing at all.
In a different twist on promoting literature in the social media, try the concept of "Twitterature" for size. Yep, it's what you think it is - an amalgam of Twitter and literature for the new technological age. Penguin even offered two University of Chicago students a book deal based on this, eventually named "Twitterature: The World's Greatest Books, Now Presented In Twenty Tweets Or Less". Apparently, now that the Twitterati are used to reading literature in short bursts, writers are starting to self-publicise their work on Twitter.
I suppose that, being a woman of a certain age now and no longer young and hip, I just don't understand why people would want to read a novel in hyperactive two sentence chunks rather than sat down in a nice comfy armchair with a cup of tea and a chocolate Hobnob - and a proper, made-of-paper book. If I want to read Romeo and Juliet in small chunks, I'll have a wee break every five minutes. Or I could watch it on DVD and press pause between each character's part. See how daft that sounds. So why would anyone want to do it whilst surfing the net? Beats me. All I know is, I can't see how Tweeting one of our country's finest playwright's works will inspire anyone to read further, or go to the theatre. After all, once we're used to this method of delivery, all others will seem long-winded and tedious without the liberal dosage of ritalin to keep bums on seats.
But what do I know? I'm merely one of the fuddy-duddies who don't understand where it's all at with literature nowadays. The Dimwitterati, perhaps.
It seems that people are starting to take seriously the idea that social media CAN be good for the arts. Manchester Digital Development Agency (MDDA)
have been running two-day courses, Understanding Social Media for the Arts, funded by Arts Council England. There is already a social networking site aimed at fans of classical music, www.dilettante.com. According to its founder Juliana Farha, the site aims to "lead the classical uprising", and open classical music up beyond Radio 3, and London concert halls. It is a place where people can not only chat and blog about classical music, but also post their own compositions and work, developing their career as well as friendships with fellow enthusiasts. For arty types, www.myartspace.com is the place to go, to connect with other artists, display work and generally keep in the loop about the contemporary art scene. If you love reading, you can join an online book club at www.shelfari.com, where people gather to see what other people are reading, discover new books and even build a virtual bookshelf to show off your books. Obviously, this may declassify itself as "the arts" if, say, your bookshelf consists entirely of Kerry Katona autobiographies and Dan Brown, but I guess any book is better than nothing at all.
In a different twist on promoting literature in the social media, try the concept of "Twitterature" for size. Yep, it's what you think it is - an amalgam of Twitter and literature for the new technological age. Penguin even offered two University of Chicago students a book deal based on this, eventually named "Twitterature: The World's Greatest Books, Now Presented In Twenty Tweets Or Less". Apparently, now that the Twitterati are used to reading literature in short bursts, writers are starting to self-publicise their work on Twitter.
I suppose that, being a woman of a certain age now and no longer young and hip, I just don't understand why people would want to read a novel in hyperactive two sentence chunks rather than sat down in a nice comfy armchair with a cup of tea and a chocolate Hobnob - and a proper, made-of-paper book. If I want to read Romeo and Juliet in small chunks, I'll have a wee break every five minutes. Or I could watch it on DVD and press pause between each character's part. See how daft that sounds. So why would anyone want to do it whilst surfing the net? Beats me. All I know is, I can't see how Tweeting one of our country's finest playwright's works will inspire anyone to read further, or go to the theatre. After all, once we're used to this method of delivery, all others will seem long-winded and tedious without the liberal dosage of ritalin to keep bums on seats.
But what do I know? I'm merely one of the fuddy-duddies who don't understand where it's all at with literature nowadays. The Dimwitterati, perhaps.
Monday, 22 March 2010
How Your Employee's Twitter Posts Can Ruin Your Business.
The other day I received an invitation to partake of dowloading a MessageLabs whitepaper, the email titled as above, promising to uncover the business issues associated with web (mis) use in the workplace". Lucky me, it was part of an IT Compliance Bulletin and also included the tempting "Free 10-page Guide to Achieving ISO 27001 Certification", "Dangerous Things You Didn't Know About Outbound Emails" (and I don't think they just mean the ones you send to ex-boyfriends after a few glasses of wine and get yourself in a 'situation') and - my personal favourite - "A Masterclass In Threat Detection And Prevention!". I haven't read any of them yet. In fact, I've only just downloaded the first one, "Is Social Networking Really Bad For Business?". So, anyway, can employee's Twitter posts really ruin your business? The same, or even more so than, say, posting semi-clad photos of themselves on Facebook, or slagging you off down the pub to all and sundry, or taking out an advert in The Times to let middle England read all about it? Are they even talking about the posts in a content way, or do they mean the time spent posting rather than working? I'd rather the more scandalous and salacious reasons, such as posting photos of you in bed with the MD, for example. I am prepared to be disappointed though. So how DOES the evil Twitter go about destroying businesses and lives? The mind boggles. But let it boggle no more, dear reader - because I am happy to share with you the secrets of the MessageLabs report. It's probably stuff we all know anyway. We can read through it together. Let's start on Page 1, shall we?
It all seems to stem from the changed nature of internet use in the workplace, put in motion by those pesky young Generation Y-ers. Rather than just using t'interweb for emails, research and buying shoes in the Brand Alley sale in your lunch hour, you can now have a chat with your mates, upload photos from your mobile phone, share a video or song, and update your relationship status. All in the space it takes your colleague to make a cup of tea ready and bring in the digestives. With Facebook growing 228% in the 12 months since Feb 2008, and Twitter a massive 1382%, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out that there must be a hell of a lot of people using these social networking sites whilst on the clock. Next up is the blending of work and personal life, with people expecting to be able to access the internet for personal use whilst at work, for various reasons. Gambling, checking personal emails (Hotmail, Yahoo! etc), downloading music and so on. Over two thirds of online porn traffic occurs during office hours, according to http://www.getsafeonline.org/. And of course, Tweeting and sheep throwing are also very popular. Hearteningly, some of us are good little boys and girls and use the net to download work relevant software, and are harnessing social networking sites for the good - to build contacts for networking, lead generation and to keep up with industry developments. We are known as "committed employees", don't you know. Blogs and forums are now used as important business tools, especially for marketing or recruitment led companies.
So what's the problem? Well, apparently there are web risks to business. Duh, like we didn't already know that. Everyone knows that. So are MessageLabs telling us anything new? The first consideration is of direct, measurable costs. Reduced productivity and wasted bandwidth are cited as examples of this. Security is an issue - malicious websites, accidental loss of data and new threats from cybercriminals. Legal compliance is also a problem, as are employee/HR issues and unauthorised software downloads. All these can lead to businesses being sued, fined and generally getting into lots of trouble. Right down at the bottom of the pile is brand and reputation risk. Personally, I think that this last one is the largest issue for any SME, who rely more heavily on word of mouth than larger companies who can exercise damage control in most cases should their reputation be threatened. Most companies already have a AUP - Acceptable Use Policy - in place to minimise these risks. If yours hasn't, then as an owner/boss, get one - as an employee, enjoy surfing while you can!
Interesting stuff, if not exactly groundbreaking. Yes, it's obvious we shouldn't post confidential documents or information pertaining to work on Facebook. Or look at porn, or Tweet and blog when were are pretending to be typing up the minutes of last week's AGM. But whilst the report concentrates the obviously quantifiable risks to business, especially security (not surprisingly, being produced by MessageLabs, Symantec Hosted Services TM) it doesn't mention any of the sorts of things that people do on social networking sites that could affect the reputation/brand adversely.
Things like writing on your friend's wall about how much you hate your job and boss, using four letter words exclusively. Things like slagging off a client and naming them. Things like posting dirty pictures of yourself on your Facebook page and inviting professional contacts to look. Maybe stuff like generally being foul mouthed and chavvy when you post on Twitter, or updating your Facebook status every time you get drunk, dumped, or laid. In themselves, all these things could be seen as pretty harmless (except the dirty pics one... unless you know that your contacts will be happy to see you in a PVC nurse's uniform and won't mention it to your boss). Unfortunately, all these things are probably an extremely stupid idea if you have lots of colleagues following you on Twitter or as Facebook friends, and a bloody ridiculous idea if you actually have your boss/manager/HR director etc as a contact able to access everything you write or upload.
You know what? I don't think your employee's Twitter posts CAN ruin your business. If you run the company properly, and treat people well, they won't need to write nasty things about you. If they are fulfilled and interested in their jobs, they won't have to spend all day Tweeting for something to do. And, at the end of the day, you're responsible for the hiring (even if indirectly) of your staff... so if they end up twisting the internet to use it for pure evil, then you need to ask yourself how they ever got through the first stage interview.
Mind you, when I got my job I hadn't even heard of Twitter, so my poor boss never stood a chance...
For more free whitepapers on web security and the like, see www.messagelabs.co.uk
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Game, Sir? No, Sir - that's a bar chart, Sir...
Bored at work? Addicted to computer games? Fed up of jumping guiltily every time your boss walks into the room and having to hastily shut down your game window so you don't get caught out? Me too. If Big Fish Games had never been invented, I would be much more productive. I hear there are some people who truly love their work and would never find it tedious, but suspect these are a) dull as dishwater, b) exceptionally overpaid or c) lying. Or all three. Although I would have thought that b) precludes a), but what do I know about the world of work? Not too much, as it happens, although I try to get at least some of it done in between hidden object games, Prison Break marathons and street dance (yes, really ... although an accurate description would involve adding the word "pitiful" somewhere, as opposed to dance). Anyway, all is not lost, fellow lazies - for some marvellous chaps at CantYouSeeImBusy.com have solved our problem with a cunning plan. They have created games, inspired by old style arcade games that many of us grew up with such as Breakout and Tetris. Fine, I hear you say - but what's so interesting about that? Well, you may like this, workshy ones - all the games are disguised as Excel and Word documents so your boss will never find out! These games follow the general gist of the classics they copy, just played against what look like genuine office applications. Tidy. In Leadership, you have to direct a spaceship between two lines of a graph and Breakdown (based on the wonderful Atari Breakout) sees the player having to hit lines of text to make them disappear, rather than the original bricks. According to the Dutch developers' website, "all the games at CantYouSeeImBusy.com are designed in a way that nobody can see that you’re gaming. In fact, your boss and colleagues will think that you’re working harder than ever before." Hmmm. I can see two major flaws there. Firstly, that the games sound less than inspiring, and secondly, most bosses would be suspicious if a previously lackadaisical employee suddenly stopped surfing OnlineGames.net and started gazing intently at pie charts. Especially when their job role doesn't even involve pie charts. And the conscientious part of me feels that it's a bit, well, irresponsible to encourage people to play computer games when they are being paid to work, even if it is all intended as a bit of fun and they would do it anyway. Maybe I am just an old stick in the mud. Well, we can't all be perfect.
In defiance of being made to feel like a naughty schoolgirl, I prefer to opt for the good old-fashioned work avoidance techniques - day dreaming, copious note taking/ internet research (hey, why do you think I like to blog?!), toilet trips, cigarette breaks, offering to do the coffee run etc - personally. And if that doesn't work, then never fear. Just swap desks so you face your boss, look engrossed, quizzical, thoughtful and serious at appropriate/ equal intervals, and keep your Big Fish pop-up window open. After all, if it's good enough for me...
For the hidden games, see www.CantYouSeeImBusy.com
For hidden object games, see www.bigfishgames.com
In defiance of being made to feel like a naughty schoolgirl, I prefer to opt for the good old-fashioned work avoidance techniques - day dreaming, copious note taking/ internet research (hey, why do you think I like to blog?!), toilet trips, cigarette breaks, offering to do the coffee run etc - personally. And if that doesn't work, then never fear. Just swap desks so you face your boss, look engrossed, quizzical, thoughtful and serious at appropriate/ equal intervals, and keep your Big Fish pop-up window open. After all, if it's good enough for me...
For the hidden games, see www.CantYouSeeImBusy.com
For hidden object games, see www.bigfishgames.com
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Can you Recogniz(r) the danger?
Last month, Swedish android developers The Amazing Tribe (or TAT, to those in the know), displayed a controversial new mobile application at the Mobile World Congress. If you haven't heard all about Recognizr by now, then you must either be over 70 or have been taking part in David Mitchell's "interesting" BBC2 show The Bubble. Long story short, Recognizr - not a typo - is an "augmented reality application" (TAT), which you chuck on your mobile phone. Just use the camera to take a picture of anyone you see who looks familiar/ interesting/ attractive etc, and lo and behold, Recognizr allows you to find them on Facebook or Twitter and read all about them. TAT claim that this application will improve the social networking experience of those people to whom social networking is an essential part of their life (saddos, teenagers, and stalkers spring to mind). Talking of the latter, The Sun was quick to publish an article branding the Recognizr application as a "stalker's dream", in their typical tabloid scaremongering style. Their trademark layout saw an article emblazoned with heavily bolded words to ram home the point that BURGLARS, BLACKMAILERS and PERVERTS would take no time at all to turn the application to heinous use. Well, I say. According to The Sun's talent-free Richard Moriarty, security "experts" say that burglars will be able to take pictures of people on a night out and then find out their addresses in order to rob them, anyone "fooling around" on a night out would be vulnerable to blackmail (what "fooling about" entails is anyone's guess, but based on the average standard of The Sun's readership, probably sleeping with your fiancee's sister, in which case you deserve to be blackmailed) and women would be stalked by perverts. Nothing new there then.
The Astonishing Tribe are quick to point out that any fears for safety are completely unfounded. They say that the application can only be fully utilised if both parties have signed up for it, that privacy levels (similar to those on Facebook) can be set up, and that this will avoid security violations. It sounds like Recognizr is intended to be used like Facebook - to allow friends to keep in touch and share photographs and updates. If what TAT say is true, then yes, any pervert can take my pic in a crowded bar, but unless I have activated my usage of Recognizr, then their scary and filthy attempts to hunt me down will be fruitless. And let's face it, any would-be stalker or rapist is perfectly capable of taking a secret snap and then following me home the good old-fashioned way.
More to the point, why is this application so threatening to people? I'll tell you for why - because they have openly posted personal details such as addresses, emails, contact numbers and photographs of themselves on the internet. Facebook, as far as I'm aware, works by allowing people to choose privacy settings, and in this way only accepted contacts can view any personal information. Anyone can take a picture of anyone else in the street and try to track them down via Recognizr, but surely would only be successful if the photographee a) also used the application, b) had their picture on Facebook and c) also listed their name and address on their Facebook page. If someone you don't know takes a shine to your Facebook photo (which is always much better than the reality anyway) and asks to be your "friend", then you can always say no if you think they might be a dodgy pervert/ stalker/ burglar. It is your responsibility to keep yourself safe on social networks, after all.
But, adding fuel to the Facebook fire comes the reports about the sentencing yesterday of Peter Chapman, who posed as a teenager on the site in order to kidnap, rape and murder his 17 year old victim. A convicted sex offender, he used Facebook as a means to meet young girls, and managed to befriend, groom and lure Ashleigh Hall to her death. The Merseyside Police have been heavily criticised for losing touch of Chapman for almost 9 months before deciding to issue a nationwide search for him prior to Ashleigh's murder, but the real issue being debated in the case is the safety of Facebook for children and teenagers. Although releasing a statement warning people not to meet up with online contacts as they may have nefarious intentions, they have been lambasted by the police for their refusal to sign up to a "panic button" scheme designed to protect children from paedophiles. Bebo and MSN have adopted the Ceop (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit) scheme, which is used to build intelligence reports of likely suspects which become part of police investigations. Any young person who is worried that they are being contacted or groomed by a paedophile can press this button and report the activity directly to Ceop. Last year 267 reports of suspicious activity on Facebook were made, and 43% of these were in regards to suspected grooming. Worryingly, though, 81% of those worried were forced to access other sites in order to contact Ceops, because they had no way to do so via Facebook. 334 arrests were made last year following these reports. It is frightening to think of children or young people being targetted by paedophiles on social networking sites, and especially for those parents whose children, like Ashleigh, are old enough to go out on their own. I can't help thinking, though, just how useful the panic button alone would be. Sure, if you have a child savvy enough to spot a possible danger, or you yourself are suspicious, then yes - it would be effective. But if, say, you have a teenage daughter who meets someone she believes to be a young man, and they exchange joking and flirting emails, and photographs and then he asks to meet - how do you monitor this? She has had no reason to suspect anything, and no report will have been generated. She probably won't even tell her parents that she is off to meet some lad off the internet - after all, they will just go mad and tell her he is an old pervert, and she knows he is her soulmate - so she says she's going to her mate's house. It's sad but true that, as long as there are paedophiles and sexual predators out there, they will use any method they can to access and abuse their victims. The internet is just one way and, unfortunately, makes their job a bit easier.
So, whether you are scared rigid by The Sun's completely unbiased report on the Recognizr app or love the idea, can't imagine life without Facebook, or worry endlessly about who your kids are chatting to on all these new fangled social networking sites, you don't need to be a victim. Personally, I don't use Facebook. I used to, but now I don't, and never will. I just don't like it. For that reason I am not worried at all about this Recognizr thingymijob, or getting myself an online stalker. I don't allow my 12 year old to Facebook - if he wants to chat with his mates, there's a phone for that. Or - and this is a novel idea in our modern world - he can invite them over for tea. It makes me feel secure, and it's one less thing to worry about. For people who do like Facebook (my partner, bless him, is one of these) and see it as a valuable way to keep up with friends and family, then just watch your backs and all will be fine.
Or you could always start a Facebook campaign to ban Facebook, I suppose. Power to the people, not the perverts.
The Astonishing Tribe are quick to point out that any fears for safety are completely unfounded. They say that the application can only be fully utilised if both parties have signed up for it, that privacy levels (similar to those on Facebook) can be set up, and that this will avoid security violations. It sounds like Recognizr is intended to be used like Facebook - to allow friends to keep in touch and share photographs and updates. If what TAT say is true, then yes, any pervert can take my pic in a crowded bar, but unless I have activated my usage of Recognizr, then their scary and filthy attempts to hunt me down will be fruitless. And let's face it, any would-be stalker or rapist is perfectly capable of taking a secret snap and then following me home the good old-fashioned way.
More to the point, why is this application so threatening to people? I'll tell you for why - because they have openly posted personal details such as addresses, emails, contact numbers and photographs of themselves on the internet. Facebook, as far as I'm aware, works by allowing people to choose privacy settings, and in this way only accepted contacts can view any personal information. Anyone can take a picture of anyone else in the street and try to track them down via Recognizr, but surely would only be successful if the photographee a) also used the application, b) had their picture on Facebook and c) also listed their name and address on their Facebook page. If someone you don't know takes a shine to your Facebook photo (which is always much better than the reality anyway) and asks to be your "friend", then you can always say no if you think they might be a dodgy pervert/ stalker/ burglar. It is your responsibility to keep yourself safe on social networks, after all.
But, adding fuel to the Facebook fire comes the reports about the sentencing yesterday of Peter Chapman, who posed as a teenager on the site in order to kidnap, rape and murder his 17 year old victim. A convicted sex offender, he used Facebook as a means to meet young girls, and managed to befriend, groom and lure Ashleigh Hall to her death. The Merseyside Police have been heavily criticised for losing touch of Chapman for almost 9 months before deciding to issue a nationwide search for him prior to Ashleigh's murder, but the real issue being debated in the case is the safety of Facebook for children and teenagers. Although releasing a statement warning people not to meet up with online contacts as they may have nefarious intentions, they have been lambasted by the police for their refusal to sign up to a "panic button" scheme designed to protect children from paedophiles. Bebo and MSN have adopted the Ceop (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit) scheme, which is used to build intelligence reports of likely suspects which become part of police investigations. Any young person who is worried that they are being contacted or groomed by a paedophile can press this button and report the activity directly to Ceop. Last year 267 reports of suspicious activity on Facebook were made, and 43% of these were in regards to suspected grooming. Worryingly, though, 81% of those worried were forced to access other sites in order to contact Ceops, because they had no way to do so via Facebook. 334 arrests were made last year following these reports. It is frightening to think of children or young people being targetted by paedophiles on social networking sites, and especially for those parents whose children, like Ashleigh, are old enough to go out on their own. I can't help thinking, though, just how useful the panic button alone would be. Sure, if you have a child savvy enough to spot a possible danger, or you yourself are suspicious, then yes - it would be effective. But if, say, you have a teenage daughter who meets someone she believes to be a young man, and they exchange joking and flirting emails, and photographs and then he asks to meet - how do you monitor this? She has had no reason to suspect anything, and no report will have been generated. She probably won't even tell her parents that she is off to meet some lad off the internet - after all, they will just go mad and tell her he is an old pervert, and she knows he is her soulmate - so she says she's going to her mate's house. It's sad but true that, as long as there are paedophiles and sexual predators out there, they will use any method they can to access and abuse their victims. The internet is just one way and, unfortunately, makes their job a bit easier.
So, whether you are scared rigid by The Sun's completely unbiased report on the Recognizr app or love the idea, can't imagine life without Facebook, or worry endlessly about who your kids are chatting to on all these new fangled social networking sites, you don't need to be a victim. Personally, I don't use Facebook. I used to, but now I don't, and never will. I just don't like it. For that reason I am not worried at all about this Recognizr thingymijob, or getting myself an online stalker. I don't allow my 12 year old to Facebook - if he wants to chat with his mates, there's a phone for that. Or - and this is a novel idea in our modern world - he can invite them over for tea. It makes me feel secure, and it's one less thing to worry about. For people who do like Facebook (my partner, bless him, is one of these) and see it as a valuable way to keep up with friends and family, then just watch your backs and all will be fine.
Or you could always start a Facebook campaign to ban Facebook, I suppose. Power to the people, not the perverts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
