Doctor Armstrong I presume?

Photo: Damian Dovarganes

If you're going to be a secret Supervillain, you can never get caught. Ever.
You lose friends, fans, sponsors & lawsuits, not to mention free entrances into swanky clubs & a place on the Queen's Christmas Card List.
You also lose honorary degrees, which are degrees you don't have to study for at all, bestowing you with the title of 'Doctor' - sans the ability to operate a stethoscope, of course.
An American university has  stripped Dr. Lance Armstrong of the honorary Doctor of Humane Letters they bestowed upon him in 2006, citing the fact that Armstrong's "actions as an athlete are inconsistent with the values of the university."
Since universities are synonymous with knowledge, learning & hard work, it's rather humorous to consider that Armstrong's acceptance speech in 2006, contained many inspiring gems that would've spurred the university's students to 'learn' from his outstanding 'values':

"For a guy who barely made it out of high school, I find it incredibly ironic that I am standing up here as a doctor," & "I would just ask that somebody send the photos to the principal at Plano East Senior High and let them know that I, in fact, graduated from Tufts and he has to call me Dr. Armstrong now."

No doubt Armstrong's former principal has been enjoying the long season of 'I told you so' recently. Unfortunately the legions of cancer survivors (both young & old) who saw Armstrong as a symbol of hope in their own battle, have not been enjoying the last few months so much.

There are con men, con artists & con-noisseurs - people who take deception to expert heights, leaving others in awe of their astounding capability to orchestrate the most elaborate & extensive webs of deception.
A few names come to mind - Charles Ponzi, Milli Vanilli, Frank Abagnale, L. Ron Hubbard & Richard Nixon.
But the 'cyclist' formally known as Doctor Lance Armstrong, looks set to go down in history as one of the greatest con men of modern times.
Personally, I'm waiting for the book & movie deals that Armstrong is probably negotiating at the moment. The proceeds should help pay back some of the millions he owes his former sponsors...

Where's the line on personal information?

I recently read an article on News24 about an American who'd been asked for his Facebook profile login & password during an interview.
Now, employees have been snooping around & checking out the social profiles of their employees (both current & potential) for a while now. Background checks are also common, but the question is; where is the line that marks "invasion of privacy"?
Anyone who accesses Facebook's site is subject to their Terms of use, wherein it states that: "You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else." 
While this is a great principle, someone who is desperate for employment is probably not going to refuse to hand over login details to someone he/she hopes is about to give them a job.
There's also the question of whether companies will start paying Facebook to access information on potential employees. Which isn't much different from the idea of 'strategic partners' who already have access to your information & make suggestions like what other music artists you might like, or places you might want to shop at.

Of course, reverse the situation & things get rather one-sided.

How does an individual do a background check on a company? Specially when people are being asked to sign agreements that restrict them from making any public comments about the organisation, specifically when it comes to publishing those comments on social media sites.

While companies may have the money to hire someone to investigate individuals, it's highly unlikely that the average person has the money to hire someone to investigate the company in return & question the happiness of its current employees.

In other words, individuals don't have much hope against the big guys & what they dictate. Unless loads of individuals band together, act as a unit & revolt against the 'authorities'. 

It can happen & when it does, the dictators don't stand a chance.

The other side of the coin is questioning just how much information employers have a right to know before they hire you. What if the potential employee is a peodophile? What if they have engaged in illegal activities such as drug abuse or theft of a previous employer's property?

When is it okay to snoop & how much information should they snoop on?

It's highly debatable. 

While people's private activities are their own business, after-hour activities can have a direct or indirect affect on your work. If you're arrested, or you land up in hospital, the business is affected. And that's essentially the risk that organisations are trying to avoid.

However, the methods of risk management that some companies are using, are not the best.

So what is the best approach?

It's a hard question to answer & something that organisations should seriously be considering in the age of social media. In fact, organisations should probably consider things like social media & potential employees in their overall Risk Management Strategy.

Certainly the best approach is not to ask someone for their username & password during an interview!