http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics 1.1 Contribute to society and human well-being. This principle concerning the quality of life of all people affirms an obligation to protect fundamental human rights and to respect the diversity of all cultures. An essential aim of computing professionals is to minimize negative consequences of computing systems, including threats to health and safety. When designing or implementing systems, computing professionals must attempt to ensure that the products of their efforts will be used in socially responsible ways, will meet social needs, and will avoid harmful effects to health and welfare. In addition to a safe social environment, human well-being includes a safe natural environment. Therefore, computing professionals who design and develop systems must be alert to, and make others aware of, any potential damage to the local or global environment. 1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate. The values of equality, tolerance, respect for others, and the principles of equal justice govern this imperative. Discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, age, disability, national origin, or other such factors is an explicit violation of ACM policy and will not be tolerated. Inequities between different groups of people may result from the use or misuse of information and technology. In a fair society,all individuals would have equal opportunity to participate in, or benefit from, the use of computer resources regardless of race, sex, religion, age, disability, national origin or other such similar factors. However, these ideals do not justify unauthorized use of computer resources nor do they provide an adequate basis for violation of any other ethical imperatives of this code. 1.7 Respect the privacy of others. Computing and communication technology enables the collection and exchange of personal information on a scale unprecedented in the history of civilization. Thus there is increased potential for violating the privacy of individuals and groups. It is the responsibility of professionals to maintain the privacy and integrity of data describing individuals. This includes taking precautions to ensure the accuracy of data, as well as protecting it from unauthorized access or accidental disclosure to inappropriate individuals. Furthermore, procedures must be established to allow individuals to review their records and correct inaccuracies. This imperative implies that only the necessary amount of personal information be collected in a system, that retention and disposal periods for that information be clearly defined and enforced, and that personal information gathered for a specific purpose not be used for other purposes without consent of the individual(s). These principles apply to electronic communications, including electronic mail, and prohibit procedures that capture or monitor electronic user data, including messages,without the permission of users or bona fide authorization related to system operation and maintenance. User data observed during the normal duties of system operation and maintenance must be treated with strictest confidentiality, except in cases where it is evidence for the violation of law, organizational regulations, or this Code. In these cases, the nature or contents of that information must be disclosed only to proper authorities. 1.8 Honor confidentiality. The principle of honesty extends to issues of confidentiality of information whenever one has made an explicit promise to honor confidentiality or, implicitly, when private information not directly related to the performance of one's duties becomes available. The ethical concern is to respect all obligations of confidentiality to employers, clients, and users unless discharged from such obligations by requirements of the law or other principles of this Code. --- http://badgerherald.com/news/2006/02/01/employers_scrutinize.php According to Kearney, in one such incident an outraged government employer who worked close with IU and hired a number of interns from the university, contacted her. Kearney said the employer used current and former interns to access Facebook, looking into the personal profiles of other interns. Upon finding distasteful information and pictures of a former intern and current IU student, the employer "demanded" its name and the student's internship status be removed from the Facebook profile. The apologetic student complied, she said. --- http://www.facebook.com/terms.php You understand that except for advertising programs offered by us on the Site (e.g., Facebook Flyers, Facebook Marketplace), the Service and the Site are available for your personal, non-commercial use only. [...] * use or attempt to use another's account, service or system without authorization from the Company, or create a false identity on the Service or the Site. --- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7523128.stm A businessman whose personal details were "laid bare" in fake entries on the Facebook social networking website has won a libel case at the High Court. Mathew Firsht was awarded £22,000 in damages against an old school friend, Grant Raphael, who created the profile. The profiles were on Facebook for 16 days until they were taken down. The court heard that Mr Raphael created a false personal profile for Mr Firsht, and a company profile called "Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?". The judge heard that the private information concerned Mr Firsht's whereabouts, activities, birthday and relationship status. It falsely indicated his sexual orientation and political views. --- http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/facebook-profiles-can-foil-job-searches-22272/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class I also caution my clients to remember that people coming into the work force don't always know the proper way to behave. That's not new. They don't seem to know that they shouldn't wear clothes that show the new tattoo on their lower back. Actually using the Internet to look at information on current job applicants comes down to boring stuff: Are you making a decision based on valid predictor skills you think you need, or some other prohibited criteria or some sort of bias you have, or a "protected class." For example, you look someone up online and pictures show up of a female applicant and her girlfriend. In California, it's prohibited to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In interviews, the same laws apply. Then there's also the National Labor Relations Act, when we're talking about current employees.... If you're doing lawful conduct during nonworking hours, it may not be something an employer likes, but the employer is prohibited from taking adverse action. The final part I talk to people about is the expectation of privacy.... A lot of people recommend you meet the person during the interview process; and if you want to go forward, you get written consent that your background check will include an online search. --- http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/061208/8facebook.htm Many students appreciate why employers would turn to online resources, but they also fear that what employers find there could be taken out of context. "There's a potential for employers to be misled," says Conor Geary, a sophomore at Siena College in upstate New York, who also created the Facebook group "Dear Employer: I'm an Upstanding Individual Despite My Facebook Pictures." "If employers don't understand the purpose of it, they shouldn't be using it to make negative judgments." Some companies, like [IAC/InterActiveCorp, a media conglomerate], deliberately reject the "inherently unreliable" information gleaned online. "We have no idea what's fact or fiction," [says Johnny Taylor Jr., senior VP for human resources]. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law The theory of the rule excluding hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are often unreliable; such statements are often insincere, subject to flaws in memory and perception, or infected with errors in narration at the time they are given. Three tests are calculated to expose possible weaknesses in a statement: 1. Assertions must be taken under oath; 2. Assertions must be made in front of the tribunal (judge or jury); and 3. Assertions must be subject to cross-examination. Assertions not subject to these three tests are (with some exceptions) prohibited insofar as they are offered testimonially (for the truth of what they assert). --- http://www.tuftsdaily.com/2.5512/1.595964 'It seems to me that people who look at sites such as Facebook in order to, in effect, spy on students are taking advantage of the internet in a way that's not all that different from the way that sexual predators exploit it," said Assistant Professor of Philosophy Nancy Bauer, who teaches Introduction to Ethics.' '"Obviously, employers or administrators who look at these sites are not breaking any laws, but they are fully aware that they are covertly looking at information that students might never voluntarily give them and then, at least in some cases, using that information in way that hurts the students," Bauer said.' '"This is not like a parent sneaking into a kid's room and reading her diary - when an employer, in particular, is involved, one could hardly argue that the motivation in trolling websites that are set up for social purposes is to promote the potential employees' interests," Bauer said. "The motivation, rather, is to take advantage of a certain naivete on the part of students. That's exploitation, and any plausible code of ethics is going to find it, at bare minimum, disturbing."' '"That students are naive does not mean that they are to be blamed for what employers are doing, or even that employers are morally off the hook," she continued. "But its does mean that, like it or not, students are in effect asking for trouble."'