@Mr. Roques - Agreed.  When so many people are posting seemingly harmless things on Facebook or other site, it could be easy to lose sight of what's appropriate behavior in the eyes of a recruiter or HR professional.  

The idea of having to watch every photo and refrain from sharing every action for fear of losing opportunities that people will see it all as an unwinnable game or a game not worth playing.

The examples used in the article seem quite radical. Anyone that came across those comments should had questioned themselves. 

But what about more subtle posts? Many pictures with drinks, or a "non traditional" lifestyle... that's what most people are afraid of. 

@Ariella,  You bring up a great point -- the information recruiters find on the Internet, including a photo, may not be accurate.  Is an immature post from college days that important ten years later?  What if friends give false endorsements on LinkedIn without having worked with someone applying for a job?  Maybe that stunning photo is retouched or a photo of someone else?  Most people are honest, but I'm sure recruiters will have lots of stories to tell after days, months or years of checking up on people online.

@Joanne and, of course, glasses reveal less than perfect vision, though that can be disguised with contact lenses. You could guess an age based on a photo, but you don't always know how old the photo is. And then there are the people who look much younger than their age. I've been thinking of getting my husband a T-shirt that says, "I'm not their older brother; I'm their father," or something to that effect. 

Yes, Ariella, it is the conventional thing to post a photo on LinkedIn or a site like IE.  A prospective employer can glean a lot from a photo.  Gender, age and enthicity are the most obvious.  The way someone wears their hair or the style of their clothes could reveal their religious views or political views as well.  None of these can typically be detected from a paper resume.  Without even looking at Facebook or other social media posts, an employer has a wealth of information about a candidate right away.  Gone are the days of true EEO, even for those valuing integrity in the candidate search.

@Joanne Yes, I've seen a number of discussions about including a photo on LI. I actually do include my photo there (same one as here). As most people do include their pictures, it seems the more conventional thing to do on that network. 

@Ariella - I agree with you. 

As for social media, people have to really learn to regard it as a public forum and not be lulled into a false sense of security because they are only sharing with friends. Even if businesses do not demand passwords -- and I don't believe they should have that right -- they can usually find out quite a bit without it.

Even seeing a business photo of a job applicant online through a public page on LinkedIn, could lead to discrimination of applicants.  The days of carefully screening applicants to avoid discrimination practices seems more challenging than ever. 

Ariella, I'm quite aware that businesses run an assortment of background checks; I'm just stating my opinion that many of them are overly invasive.

Most likely no one will listen or respond by eliminating credit checks and drug testing except in cases where the new position will require fiscal responsibility for the former or a special reason for the latter (e.g. the new hire will have access to or control of drugs as part of the job, showing up with a hangover could endanger others or risk damage to equipment, etc.). I stand by my assertion that forcing potential employees to permit access to medical records or credit information should be illegal except in extreme circumstances, and I call for an end to drug testing except for a very few jobs.

Regarding criminal records: they are public record. Certainly it's reasonable to search that. No objection.

As for social media, a large part of that is public too. I agree that it's up to the individual what they put on their profile or send out in a tweet. Exactly what sort of social media information can be used as part of a hiring decision is another matter; it's not reasonable to refuse a job to someone because they belong to some facebook group supporting gay marriage, for instance. Or if they post in various places advocating free speech.

@chuckgregory Ideally, yes, but businesses already do background checks, as a matter of course. So they dig into criminal records and financial records that would also flag credit problems. And drug tests are very common. All invasive, yes. But the problem is that you'd be hard-pressed to find a place that does not call for that.  

As for social media, people have to really learn to regard it as a public forum and not be lulled into a false sense of security because they are only sharing with friends. Even if businesses do not demand passwords -- and I don't believe they should have that right -- they can usually find out quite a bit without it. 

David, I cannot disagree that "it is up to the hiring managers and human resources to gather all the information they can in order to estimate/guestimate how a person will perform the actual execution of the duties of the job." And yes, it's not unreasonable that social media might be part of the equation--if said social media is publicly shared and has been volunteered rather than coerced.

I do not believe that a candidate should be forced to divulge social media profiles. Further, I don't believe that it's appropriate to force potential hires to share their medical history, their credit rating, or their history with the injustice system. In addition, such things as driving record and drug tests should not be required unless the candidate will actually be driving a company vehicle as part of their job.

Any information divulged by the candidate is of course subject to verification. Lying about anything should be a reason for refusal about a job; however, poor decisions in the past should in most cases not affect the chances for hiring now.