by Tanaz Irani (Spec. Hon. B.A, Pol.Sci.)

It is common and accepted knowledge that once users establish an account on any one of the numerous social networking sites available today, those users are making themselves vulnerable to privacy invasion in a number of ways. Earlier this year Facebook updated its policies on user generated content to allow virtually all uploaded material to be used by the company for advertising, marketing, or essentially any other purpose, even long after the user deletes an account. These policy modifications did not go unnoticed, and in fact were met with public complaint and threatened legal action. This ultimately encouraged the good people at Facebook to return to the older version of the policy; however Facebook is not the only entity that users need to be aware of in respect to privacy concerns.

More and more employers are using social networking sites as a tool to screen potential employees. With the multitude of recent layoffs, and economic hard times, employers are turning to such digital tools to help sort through the numerous applications they receive – weeding out those whose online profile does not meet the standards or desires of the company. Is this (very personal) background check fair? The truth is that outside Quebec, B.C, and Alberta, Canada’s invasion of privacy laws do not extend to information in the hands of private entities, so user beware!

There are a number of pros and cons involved in the question of social networking sites and their interaction with the corporate world. While employers are accessing and assessing the posted content of current and potential employees, complaints made by these individuals against companies for their hiring and firing practices, are on the rise.

It is worth mentioning the “Cisco Fatty” case (as coined by the Globe and Mail newspaper on March 23, 2009). When following a job offer at Cisco, a Twitter user in California sent out a “tweet”: “Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty pay cheque against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.” In less than an hour, she received a reply -from a worker at Cisco- and word is she never got that fatty pay cheque.

Companies on the other hand not only can benefit from this watchdog potential, but also from the timely, financially-sound simplicity of socializing and networking via these sites. Perhaps a ‘poke’ on Facebook does not make the same impression as an expensive luncheon with a client, however it might suffice as a reminder to the client. Of course, it must be noted that such financial benefits are offset by lost productivity related to employees wasting company time surfing around, chatting with friends, stalking old classmates and taking part in innumerable quizzes, games, and various other applications. Heck, I may not be Twittering about it, but all the research and writing for this particular blog entry was done on company time! Is this lost productivity or will the ebb and flow of the digital corporate collision balance itself out? As an increasing number of people have quit smoking, could taking a social networking break be seen as the new smoker’s equivalency break?

The CRTC new media hearings, with their far-fetched funding idea to promote Canadian content online, appear to be going bust. Ok, perhaps it is not over until it is over, but we have passed the middle mark and things are not looking too progressive. The initial stage of these hearings started three weeks ago with submissions from various interest groups. The CRTC heard arguments from groups including The Canadian Independent Record Production Association, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, and The Independent Media Arts Alliance. The CRTC also accepted submissions from ISPs who are in fact, up to bat this week, offering their side of the commentary. In sum, I think University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist described it best as ‘a huge disappointment with submissions short on specifics, long on rhetoric, and filled with inconsistencies’ (www.michaelgeist.ca).

Canadian content on the Internet? Is this Canadian content that is intended to develop self-identity among Canadians from Halifax to Victoria, or intended to entertain web-surfers from Hong Kong to the Vatican? The CRTC, from the outset is taking a flawed approach with its overly-generalized and divided definitions of ‘broadcast’ versus ‘ telecom’. These traditional understandings of ‘media’ are no longer viable. Many of the interest groups seem to be taking outdated perspectives and offering similarly redundant solutions. Overall, it seems the various parties involved would first need to realize where they stand in light of contemporary media discourse, and after that agree on (or learn) a common vernacular by which discussion may be facilitated.

As these hearings sputter to an end, it leaves me thinking not of the Canadian content that will potentially never be produced, but of the vast and expensive lobbying and discussion-making industry that absorbs so much of the value that already could have been rolled into producing that content. As is often the case, the cost of the process tends to squander the resources that could be directly applied to achieve the results that the process is said to be fostering – maybe not money so well spent? While the New Media Hearings seem to be an expensive flop, hopefully at least we can salvage the conclusion that government regulation in the area of online content, is a bad idea.