Professional Ethics - Social Networking

employer would be at risk in an invasion of privacy lawsuit. A final issue is that of consistency.

Employees can keep the information safe by minimizing screen when people or passing or when leaving the computer. The employee also should not share their password with anyone at anytime.

The first of these threats is Social Engineering. Social Engineering according to Social-Engineer.org (2013), is “the act of influencing a person to accomplish goals that may or may not be in the ‘target’s’ best interest. This may include obtaining information, gaining access, or getting the target to take certain action.” The employees themselves are the area of the system affected by this threat. Social Engineering exploits their naivety. General lack of experience in recognizing this type of attack is a major reason for its success. Education on what Social Engineering is and how to recognize attacks coupled with company policies written, put into place, and enforced to prevent individuals from divulging or even having access to certain information no matter the scenario is the recommended course of action.

potentially harm the company. If an employee was conducting personal business or illegal activities by using the company's assets, the company may be held responsible and face legal charges and/or loss. A company's privacy protection can enhance employee motivation and productivity because by knowing that the managers are monitoring their

Depending on employer’s preferences, massaging, media sites and texting may not be allowed. If an individual is working as a cashier or bagger, customer service should be their main focus. Any job that requires high customer attention such as grocery stores or more professional offices should require employees to avoid using media sites and texting. If an employee is more concerned about anything other than their current job or task, it becomes a problem. This is only with customer service at the highest level, in some places, there is little customer service needed. Where I currently work, I have the approval to watch YouTube, listen to Pandora, and message anyone as long as I scan documents and it is not busy. It passes the time when

In the case of Blanton v Newton Associates, Inc., Blanton’s was clearly harassed. In cases such as this, the employer (Newton) would find their best defense in the cases of Burlington Industustries, Inc. v Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998), and Faragher v City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998).

World Color Press, Inc. it was a worker’s compensation claim which involved allegations of federal law violations. The plaintiff in this case was the senior vice president and chief financial officer was the defendant in the case. The senior vice president was hired in 1974 and fired 1982 in which he alleged was a retaliatory discharge. He was opposed to the company’s accounting practices and suggested it violated federal securities law. His claim was based on general accounting practices and principles. He noted that these principles would have overstated and inflated the income in 1981 and asset valuation of the company. The court agreed with the plaintiff on his claims as well another section of federal securities law which states it is illegal to make false statements to the federal government. This was made clear in mandated public policy. During this case the Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. was cited this case involved federal regulations on safety of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Palmateer v. International Harvester Co which reported alleged criminal activity to the local police. The mandated public policy help verify the federal laws been broken in each case. The vice president was a consider a high level manger and the defendant tried state the case that the retaliatory discharge should only apply to low level managers. Under the federal guidelines everyone should be treated equally and fairly no matter their position in the company. The courts did not agree with the defendant because he was classifying the employees which is also

Confidentiality is very important when in the workplace, in order for to maintain confidentiality there needs to be some set rules and regulations that all service users must adhere to. This includes putting passwords on computers/laptops that have confidential information on, information kept in files or filling cabinets should be locked away and secure, never leaving offices unlocked for long periods of time

As much as a company should not invade the rights of its employees , it has the equal responsibility of ensuring that its privacy and that of its employees are not divulged or used in any personal intent by other employees . According to Nyman (2005 , more companies are being held accountable by employees whose privacy was compromised in the workplace because of what is seen as a lack in its measures to ensure their privacy . Therefore , if employers are being held accountable for such situations , Nyman believes that they should be given enough power to protect themselves from such liabilities

The company 's policy should contain specific terms to inform the employee that information on the company computers are confidential and this acknowledges the company the right to access any information from his computer at any time. They are at liberty to review and monitor any computers content. However, employers should limit their own access to employee e-mail and computer content only for legitimate business purposes, such as when there 's a reasonable suspicion of work-related wrongdoing by the employee, rather than something non-specific or just

The article “Little brother is watching you” by Miriam Schulman is an informative article that speaks of workplace privacy, specifically the monitoring software “Little Brother”. This program allows employers to access anything that their employees are accessing at work using company technology. This software allows employers to access intimate, and private information that is accessed at work. In this day and age, we live in a world where it’s impossible to “turn off” your work life, you are expected to check emails and answer calls whether they are on the clock or not. Miriam argues the case that if an employee writes a letter to their boyfriend on their lunch break with a pen and paper that is property of the company, does the employer have the right to open and read that letter?

The purpose of this literary review is to enlighten my viewers of the importance of the ethical idea of companies crossing the lines of business with your personal life, when involving social media accounts. Most of my research has operated from the ATU library using the find it tool. Furthermost, the researched information use was from peer-reviewed research journal. I will discuss includes social media cons in the work environment, if it is ethical to get fired over a post, and laws that protect both parties. Social media includes an assortment of electronic communications—most commonly networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Pinterest, Instagram, and the likes thereof. Social media also covers all forms of blogs, including Twitter (a micro-blog), wikis, online journals, diaries, personal newsletters, and World of Warfare and YouTube also are included under the umbrella term of social media (Lieber 2011).

In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court abandoned its previous doctrine for ruling upon an individual’s right to privacy. Written by Justice White, the opinion of the Court in this case focused on the morality of sodomy, particularly sodomy between homosexuals, rather than the constitutional question of privacy. The Court made substantial progress in defining the right to privacy in the preceding years, but the decision in Bowers demonstrated that even the “highest Court in the land” is sometimes unable to look beyond stereotypes and prejudices (Banks, 92).

* “In the ground-breaking decision, Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, 2015 FCA 17 (“Wilson”), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) held last week that federally regulated employers may dismiss employees without cause.

Generally, employers are concerned about the various issues that could transpire in the workplace such as poor performance, viewing of inappropriate and derogatory things on the organization's equipment, lower productivity, and injuries on the job (“Managing Workplace Monitoring”, 2016). Therefore, “employers also have a duty to their employees to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the personal information gathered and maintained in the course of employment (“Managing Workplace Monitoring”, 2016, para. 1). Moreover, the main reason for monitoring employees is solely tied into limiting the amount of litigation the organization can potentially be subjected to. Therefore, to minimize exposure and risk to