One out of every four activists could be a corporate spy

MassPrivateI

RT’s Abby Martin interviews Guardian investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed, who wrote about the report.

Ahmed describes the public-private surveillance partnership that works to crush dissident movements, often in favor of protecting corporate interests:

The report uncovers compelling evidence that much corporate espionage is facilitated by government agencies, particularly the FBI. The CCP report examines a September 2010 document from the Office of the Inspector General in the US Justice Department, which reviewed FBI investigations between 2001 and 2006. It concluded that:

    “… the factual basis of opening some of the investigations of individuals affiliated with the groups was factually weak… In some cases, we also found that the FBI extended the duration of investigations involving advocacy groups or their members without adequate basis…. In some cases, the FBI classified some of its investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its ‘Acts of Terrorism’ classification.”

The Justice Department found that:

    “… the FBI articulated little or no basis for suspecting a violation of any federal criminal statute… the FBI’s opening EC [electronic communication] did not articulate any basis to suspect that they were planning any federal crimes….We also found that the FBI kept this investigation open for over 3 years, long past the corporate shareholder meetings that the subjects were supposedly planning to disrupt… We concluded that the investigation was kept open ‘beyond the point at which its underlying justification no longer existed,’ which was inconsistent with the FBI’s Manual of Investigative and Operational Guidelines (MIOG).”

The FBI’s involvement in corporate espionage has been institutionalised through ‘InfraGard’, “a little-known partnership between private industry, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.” The partnership involves the participation of “more than 23,000 representatives of private industry,” including 350 of the Fortune 500 companies.

But it’s not just the FBI. According to the new report, “active-duty CIA operatives are allowed to sell their expertise to the highest bidder”, a policy that gives “financial firms and hedge funds access to the nation’s top-level intelligence talent. Little is known about the CIA’s moonlighting policy, or which corporations have hired current CIA operatives.”

Spooky Business: Corporate Espionage Against Nonprofit Organizations 
http://www.corporatepolicy.org/spookybusiness.pdf

Social network spying could lead to lawsuits:

Organizations looking to hire new staff should rethink their clandestine use of social networking websites, such as Facebook, to screen new recruits. William Stoughton of North Carolina State University, lead author of a study published in Springer’s Journal of Business and Psychology, found that this practice could be seen as a breach of privacy and create a negative impression of the company for potential employees. This spying could even lead to law suits. 

In one experiment, Stoughton’s research team, consisting of Drs. Lori Foster Thompson and Adam Meade, examined the reaction of applicants to prospective employers’ reviewing their social networking websites. In another part of the research, participants had to rate their experience with a proposed selection process through a simulated selection scenario. In both cases, participants rated how they felt about their privacy being invaded and if the attractiveness of an organization was diminished because of such strategies. In the second experiment, participants were also asked whether they’d consider seeking legal justice if social network screening occurred.

The results demonstrate that applicants perceived pre-employment screening of social networking websites as an invasion of privacy, and might even consider suing an organization for it. Such practices further reduce the attractiveness of an organization during various phases of the selection process. 

Notably, Stoughton’s team found that people are very sensitive to their privacy being compromised, regardless of whether they are offered the job or not. It could even discourage candidates from accepting offers of employment if they interpret poor treatment of applicants as a preview or indication of how they would be dealt with as employees. Prior research has shown that people who do accept an offer of employment while being selected under unfair procedures are prone to unfavorable attitudes post-hire. The negativity resulting from perceived procedural mistreatment during the hiring process could carry forward onto the job, leading to low performance and high turnover.

Stoughton advises applicants to reconsider using their Facebook pages as private forums for casual discussion with their friends, and to rather adopt a much more guarded tone. He hinted at the demand for a new, so-called “scrubbing” service in which objectionable material is removed from clients’ presence on the Internet. This might be especially valuable for people applying for sensitive positions, such as jobs requiring a security clearance.

“Social network spying on job candidates could reduce the attractiveness of an organization during various phases of the selection process, especially if the applicant pool at large knows or suspects that the organization engages in such screening,” Stoughton notes. “Because internet message boards and social media provide easily accessible forums for job seekers to share their experiences and opinions with others, it is very easy for a soured applicant to affect others’ perceptions of an organization.”
http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1449155-0

http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2013/12/one-out-of-every-four-activists-could_20.html