<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Googling Employee Names is Not&#160;Illegal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/</link>
	<description>Latest Search Engine News from the Search Engine Journal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:37:40 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robert Hall</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/comment-page-1/#comment-1109842</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Hall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:41:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/#comment-1109842</guid>
		<description>I knew this man before he passsed away, He had addressed the court about the fact that a former federal employeer had kept information about his attempted removal after he did &quot;whistleblowing&quot; activities. The former employer removed him and had to reinstate him along with a cash settlement. He then transfered and that new Federal employeer found out about his previous removal/reinstatement and he was forced to quit.

I don&#039;t know about the way he was finally removed from Federal service but I do know it ruined his life and he went to work for the British Government in Saudi Arabia where he passed away from a heart attack.
Seems like he was running away from problems most Senators and Congressmen get away with everyday...... RIP</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I knew this man before he passsed away, He had addressed the court about the fact that a former federal employeer had kept information about his attempted removal after he did &#8220;whistleblowing&#8221; activities. The former employer removed him and had to reinstate him along with a cash settlement. He then transfered and that new Federal employeer found out about his previous removal/reinstatement and he was forced to quit.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know about the way he was finally removed from Federal service but I do know it ruined his life and he went to work for the British Government in Saudi Arabia where he passed away from a heart attack.<br />
Seems like he was running away from problems most Senators and Congressmen get away with everyday&#8230;&#8230; RIP</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Employment Lawyer Toronto</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/comment-page-1/#comment-874418</link>
		<dc:creator>Employment Lawyer Toronto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:10:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/#comment-874418</guid>
		<description>The bottom line is that you absolutely need to take care and be concerned with the &quot;trails&quot; of information you leave on line. Regardless of the outcome of this case, the person was still fired and lost their job.

If you&#039;re going to leave trails make sure they are good!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The bottom line is that you absolutely need to take care and be concerned with the &#8220;trails&#8221; of information you leave on line. Regardless of the outcome of this case, the person was still fired and lost their job.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re going to leave trails make sure they are good!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hawaii SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/comment-page-1/#comment-462322</link>
		<dc:creator>Hawaii SEO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2007 02:53:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/#comment-462322</guid>
		<description>Hmmm...  I don&#039;t know Anyyyyone who has had an employer snoop into their personal online activities.  ;) 

A popular SEO told me they ask new applicants if they use popular websites like  eBay, MySpace, etc...  The answer is almost always yes. 

&quot;Great! let&#039;s see your MySpace profile and eBay buyer/seller ratings and statistics.&quot;  (Gulp) 

These things can say a lot about a person. Some applicants get rejected based on this information.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm&#8230;  I don&#8217;t know Anyyyyone who has had an employer snoop into their personal online activities.  ;) </p>
<p>A popular SEO told me they ask new applicants if they use popular websites like  eBay, MySpace, etc&#8230;  The answer is almost always yes. </p>
<p>&#8220;Great! let&#8217;s see your MySpace profile and eBay buyer/seller ratings and statistics.&#8221;  (Gulp) </p>
<p>These things can say a lot about a person. Some applicants get rejected based on this information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Martinez</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/comment-page-1/#comment-462035</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Martinez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 16:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/googling-employee-names-is-not-illegal/4894/#comment-462035</guid>
		<description>Nowhere in the official document(http://fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3284.pdf) do the judges say that an employer may (or may not) search on an employee&#039;s name.

The whole decision sidesteps the issue.  They were only concerned with whether the principle of &quot;ex-parte communications&quot; had been violated -- that is, whether learning that the employee had been fired from two previous positions influenced the decision to let him go.

The means of discovery is irrelevant, and in this particular case the judges held there was sufficient evidence to show that the decision to fire the employee had been made before his supervisor searched for his name on Google.

The blog commentary trail on this case provides a classic illustration in the children&#039;s game of &quot;telephone&quot;: what began as a headline in Computerworld (Court: Googling an employee&#039;s name is not a federal case) has been distorted way beyond what was originally decided (much less reported).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nowhere in the official document(http://fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3284.pdf) do the judges say that an employer may (or may not) search on an employee&#8217;s name.</p>
<p>The whole decision sidesteps the issue.  They were only concerned with whether the principle of &#8220;ex-parte communications&#8221; had been violated &#8212; that is, whether learning that the employee had been fired from two previous positions influenced the decision to let him go.</p>
<p>The means of discovery is irrelevant, and in this particular case the judges held there was sufficient evidence to show that the decision to fire the employee had been made before his supervisor searched for his name on Google.</p>
<p>The blog commentary trail on this case provides a classic illustration in the children&#8217;s game of &#8220;telephone&#8221;: what began as a headline in Computerworld (Court: Googling an employee&#8217;s name is not a federal case) has been distorted way beyond what was originally decided (much less reported).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
