Will social media background checks be the catalyst for a consumer privacy backlash?

Studies show an overwhelming majority of people are ‘concerned’ about their online privacy [see here (pdf), and here], yet when I talk to technology companies large and small they tell me privacy awareness amongst the general public is patchy at best.

As social media background checks start to result in applicants being rejected for jobs simply because of pictures and comments posted on social websites, could we start to see a crippling privacy backlash that will prevent adoption of useful technology because of public fear and mistrust?

Personal data is a commodity that can be traded for ease of functionality (ie reconnect with old friends, recommendations based on past interests) or for free or discounted services.  Additionally, there's the ability to post views and beliefs in an attempt to influence a wide audience.

There are three equations in play:

privacy vs utility
privacy vs price
privacy vs influence

Anecdotally; and also through adoption rates for social media, and store discount cards which track customers' every purchase; in the UK at least we're a nation happy to trade privacy for utility and price.

Or are we? When I talk to family and friends about blogging - an unmistakably public activity - under my real name; many are surprised, and some offer me hushed advice to be careful.

Is it just that people are wary about trading privacy for influence; or, is it that the privacy implications of blogging are easy to grasp, yet many who feel comfortable using social websites fail to grasp that a friend of a friend is as good as a stranger? (Depending how readily said friend accepts friend requests.)

If we're in a situation today where people are concerned about privacy, yet don't see the privacy implications in how they use the internet, then there is a real possibility of a backlash as the implications become known.

If sufficient numbers find themselves effectively unemployable in their chosen career, due to social media background checks, before society and technology has grown up; we may well see the public mood swing against new technology.

A backlash could be averted because both society and technology is evolving to 'neutralise' emerging privacy threats.  In some ways technology is catching up with itself, providing refined controls over personal information; and society is developing to normalise and accept no-one is perfect, and social websites only serve to highlight this.  We will also become accepting of some behaviour previously seen as displaying poor manners or antisocial.

But early adopters of social media monitoring are unlikely to show much forgiveness.  Corporations could well see an unacceptable business risk in employing individuals seen to be misbehaving on the internet.  One can also imagine the public backlash if something bad happened and evidence was missed.

But there is lunacy in this argument, as the subset of individuals who choose not to engage in social media may prove to be worse employees in general, yet will pass all social media background checks by default.   Missed evidence is unlikely to be evidence in the scientific sense of the word, as I'm not aware of any scientific studies linking e.g. occasional smoking of cannabis to e.g. massive systematic corporate fraud.

And of course occasional misbehaviour on a social media profile may just be signs that the profile is relatively complete and representative of the subject's life, whereas a completely clean profile is incomplete.

All things considered, I think the risk of a backlash is high, and could result in over-regulation of a whole industry to solve a problem which has its roots in a poor understanding of the emerging privacy issues; a problem which will have solved itself, as technology and society moves on, by the time regulation comes in to force.

James Firth