Disclaimer: This is just a work of a law student in compliance with his subject in Technology and the Law. This is not intended to give legal advice or whatsoever but for compliance and classroom discussion purposes. This may not serve for any other purpose as claimed above.

Just a Click Away from your Privacy 

                     "People who live in glass houses should dress in the basement." - Jeff Neuburger 

Companies recognize the tremendous impact of the internet in the corporate world. It may generate massive economic increases and efficiency in all forms of business transactions and diminished wastes. However, it doesn’t do away with threats and risks that this technology imposed. This gives a firm conviction and reasonable appeal to the employers to use the social networking sites to widen their means in evaluating their applicant or even with their employee in order to avoid any sort of liability and lost.

According to George Lenard, a blogger and employment lawyer, social networking sites can serve companies in two primary functions: 1) Identifying potential job candidates. Employers may use these social electronic databases to search for individuals with a certain level of education, work experience, personal interests, and/or anything else that might be a company asset. 2) Background checking, where "disqualifying information" may be available, such as proof of illegal drug use or behavior the company would consider undesirable in an employee. http://mqjeffrey.hubpages.com/hub/How_employers_look_at_Myspace_and_Facebook_pages

Internet background checks may satisfy the conduct of a diligence of a good father required to an employer in choosing a competent employee. The employer must make sure that the new employee will protect company’s interest and good will. However, this issue as to whether or not companies and/or institutions can use internet search tools and access to social media accounts in determining the most suitable candidate posed a dilemma for both employers and employees in matters concerning privacy. 

I submit that this act of the employer does not pry against the privacy of the employee. As the needed personal information is made publicly available, there is a lower expectation of privacy. “What users should understand is anything posted online does not remain private, once posted it is public.” http://baruchnewmedia.com/wiki/New_Media_and_Privacy_Issues 

The advent of technology, companies were threatened and worried with so many instances in which the essentials of the business and trade security may be prejudiced. Such as emails can be a tool for a casual discussion of an employee and his friends with matters and information harmful and detrimental to the companies. Monitoring the behavior of the employees in the internet world is one way for employers to ensure that trade secrets are secured. K. Robert Bertram, Avoiding Pitfalls in Effective Use of Electronic Mail, 69 P.A.B.A.Q. 11 (1998) 

 There is no specific provision of the law, which allows or prohibits this act. However, pursuing from case law construing the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures by governmental authorities, courts have held that employers can monitor their employees' use of the Internet and email, provided the employees are given notice of such practice. Once the employees have been put on notice that a monitoring program is in place, the courts have ruled that the employees no longer can claim any reasonable expectation of privacy. http://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/employers-who-monitor-employee-internet-and-email-usage-should-monitor-their-policies-as-well 

The companies being the machinery of the government in the promotion of the economic interest must be safeguarded. The problem of the companies in the high involvement of its employees with the social net sites often appears inevitable. Thus the State with its police power may make, ordain, establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its people. (ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967) If there exists an evil that is sought to be avoided, the State has the right to prevent. (Schenck vs US 249 US 97) Thus, the State may protect the interest of the companies by enabling them to include in its polices the use of internet and access to social media accounts in determining the most suitable candidate. This would not warrant a prohibition as long as employees had been placed on notice.