We all know that our private lives have become less private since the advent of blogging, social networking and our other Internet activities. Millions of us have profiles at sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Friendster, Cafemom… The list goes on. It’s easy to pretend that these profiles (and the photos, information and updates posted to them) are seen only by family and friends, but the reality is that public profiles are just that – public. And increasingly, employers are checking out these profiles in an effort to find out more about their job candidates than what appears on a resume.

It makes sense. Many people let their guard down in their profiles, posting photos of spring break or blog entries about questionable activities. In the past, there have been cases of people getting fired over what they’ve written in their blogs, but now, our social networking activities can sabotage our job chances before we even get in the door. Of the one-third of potential new hires who were dropped from consideration because of what a boss found out about them online, almost half were cut because of information about drugs or alcohol use. Other factors included lying about qualifications and posting about illegal activities. Why should your personal life matter, you might ask? According to the New York Times, what you post online says a lot about your judgment, maturity and professionalism. What you allow to be viewed by everyone says a lot about who you are, and sometimes, that’s too much information.

If you think that one out of five bosses is a fairly low number to be using this method of checking out a job candidate, consider this: another nine percent of bosses said that they were planning to start looking up candidates’ web presences in the future, and there’s every reason to believe that the numbers will continue to increase as social networking continues to expand. For many people, their “true selves” are online, and employers want to get to know these true selves before committing to offering a position. Each individual with a profile is leaving an “online footprint,” and for most of them, the photos and content posted will continue to exist online for a long time to come, potentially hurting their chances of getting or keeping a job.

Before you rush out and delete every social networking profile you have, though, remember that protecting your privacy (and projecting the best possible image of yourself) doesn’t have to mean vanishing into obscurity. After all, 24 percent of the bosses who checked out web profiles said that what they found actually SOLIDIFIED their decision to hire a candidate. So depending on what you put in your profile, you might actually help your cause. According to Reuters, “Top factors that influenced their hiring decision included candidate’s backgrounds supporting their qualifications for the job, proving they had good communications skills, and having a site that conveyed a professional image with a wide range of interests.”

The idea of using a web presence to increase one’s desirability in the job market is fast taking hold; 16 percent of job seekers surveyed said that they’ve already tweaked their profiles to make themselves more job-friendly, and some people are even going the route of hiring others to clean up their online selves for them. ReputationDefender.com charges a range of fees to do searches of job candidate names and help make sure that photos or content that can make someone look bad are not anywhere to be found via an online search for that person. DefendMyName.com is another source that works for both individuals and companies to clean up online image.

Want to do what you can to maintain your privacy AND your chance of getting that job? It’s in your hands to keep your privacy safe when using social networking sites or blogging software. First, Google yourself and see what comes up. In some cases, the results can make you look bad without cause; for example, one college senior who Googled himself discovered a satirical essay he had written, called “Lying Your Way to the Top,” which was probably counting against him in his job search. Once he requested that the website that posted the essay take it down, he started receiving job interviews and offers. Clearly, Googling oneself is like checking one’s credit periodically; it helps to know what’s on the record.

Next, go through your profiles with a fine-toothed comb, removing any questionable photos, comments, blog entries, etc. Remove any “friends” from your list who aren’t actually your friends or who might prove to be detrimental connections if seen by an employer (the guy with 1,800 “friends” whom you’ve never met who likes to leave raunchy messages on everyone’s profile might be someone to cut from your list). You can set your privacy settings so that only approved friends can see your profile, but some employers admit to knowing ways around that. Try to view your content from the perspective of someone who is looking to bring you into a workplace. If possible, have an impartial acquaintance view your profile with a fresh eye and let you know of anything that raises a red flag. Make sure to emphasize positives, like charity efforts, varied hobbies and interests, and especially anything that pertains to the field in which you’re trying to work.

Then, continue the upkeep of your profiles. Don’t approve friends for your list unless you actually know them or trust them. Be cautious of features like Facebook photo tagging, since that makes it possible for other people to post photos of you that link to your profile. Don’t post ranting blog entries that might paint you in a negative light. Remember, you control your privacy at social networking sites and blogs, so be proactive and put your best self out there.

Sources for this article: Reuters News, Reuters Lifestyle, The New York Times. CBS News

Lori Drew, the 49-year-old Missouri resident who allegedly posed as a teenage boy on MySpace in order to harass 13-year-old Megan Meier, pled not guilty on Monday to charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress. The case is before the federal court in California, where MySpace is based.

The case has drawn attention to the possible liabilities for social networking sites, as well as how actions conducted online can be prosecuted under existing laws. What are the legal ramifications of this case, and what fault, if any, lies with MySpace for maintaining the website on which the crime occurred? How this case unfolds could determine how future laws regarding internet crime are written and interpreted, and how online privacy could be threatened.

The details of the case are chilling: Lori Drew allegedly created a fake MySpace account to find out what Meier was saying about Drew’s daughter. The prosecution charges that she posed as a teenage boy, gained Meier’s trust, chatted with her, then became cruel and sent messages suggesting that the world would be better off without Meier. Meier hanged herself in October 2006. Drew denies making the MySpace account and sending the messages.

Legally, Drew cannot be charged with any form of murder, since Meier took her own life. As one attorney put it on CNN.com, “You can’t start imposing liability on people for being cruel.” Meier reportedly suffered from attention deficit disorder and clinical depression that had been diagnosed before this incident occurred. Though Drew’s alleged behavior is immature, offensive and morally reprehensible, the laws that are currently in place make it difficult to prosecute her for a crime. In fact, Missouri prosecutors didn’t find any law under which they could charge Drew when the case first came to light in December 2007. Pressure from the public and general outrage about the incident, though, pushed the case forward under federal law.

The prosecution has its work cut out for it as the case goes to trial. The law that they are citing in this case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, was written in 1986 as a means to punish internet hackers for illegally accessing account information and government data. It addresses the removal of information from a computer, not sending out harassing messages. This is the first time that the law has been used in a social networking case.

Many experts agree that this law was not meant to be interpreted in this fashion, and that such interpretation sets a dangerous precedent for internet law as a whole. Essentially, the prosecution is arguing that it is a federal offense to violate the terms of service agreement on a social networking site. MySpace’s terms of service, which all new users must click-to-agree when they sign up, require users to provide factual information about themselves and refrain from soliciting personal information from minors or using information on the site to harass other members.

Lori Drew’s alleged behavior was a clear violation of MySpace’s terms of service, but is it a federal offense? MySpace supports the lawsuit and derides all forms of cyberbullying, but they would be foolish not to support the pursuit of this case, since the bullying happened on their site. If the prosecution succeeds in proving that Lori Drew committed a crime under federal law, then any violation of any term of service on any website could be grounds to pursue another federal case. The ramifications could be huge; on some sites, even a single disparaging comment might be interpreted as a violation of the terms of service. Internet privacy would take a major hit, as would the social networking sites themselves if more and more such cases were filed. The ability to use and enjoy sites like MySpace, Facebook and others would be severely compromised by the looming threat of a lawsuit.

MySpace was subpoenaed in January of 2008 but is not currently facing any charges for being the host site for this incident. MySpace currently boasts a membership of more than 100 million, and it is widely understood that the site administrators can’t police every profile and every message sent through the system. MySpace, like other social networking sites, relies on the terms of service agreement and reports from other users to maintain a safe environment. That isn’t always possible, obviously, nor is it always possible in other public venues, such as schools and parks. MySpace cannot be held responsible for this tragedy as long as the administrators show a measure of diligence in protecting its users from bullying and other cyber-crimes. Parents and guardians are also expected to aid in the protection of their children by monitoring what their children access online, with whom they chat, etc. It is a multi-pronged effort to keep kids safe online without compromising the rights and privacy of other users, and unfortunately, this case illustrates that the system is not perfect.

The public has demanded retribution in this tragic incident, and Lori Drew is the clear villain. But prosecuting her under a law that was written for a different purpose does not seem to solve the problem; rather, it exacerbates it. As it stands now, most experts doubt that Drew will be convicted, but the case has stimulated debate about the future of internet legislation, with many people clamoring for tighter restrictions and more clearly-defined laws. Defining laws makes sense, but adhering to them as they are written is necessary, as well. Privacy should not be compromised for the sake of perceived safety, and users should not be absolved of the responsibility to keep themselves and their children safe in what is clearly an uncertain environment. The potential for a lawsuit every time one teenager types something disparaging about another is enough to raise the caution flag on the idea of sweeping legislation.

The sad lessons learned from this case are clear: social networking websites should diligently educate users about the terms of service and handle reports of abuse promptly and fairly, as MySpace has done; parents should educate and monitor their children regarding safe internet use, because the websites can’t keep track of every message exchanged; and lawmakers should use caution in writing or interpreting laws that punish bad behavior on the internet. The anonymity of websites can elevate the potential for mean or thoughtless behavior, but in the end, we cannot rely on a law to protect children, especially children with existing emotional or mental issues, from harsh comments online. As one parent on a news website put it, “Parents should always keep tabs on what their kids are doing online, but they most certainly need to take a good inventory of their child’s self-esteem and emotional well being before allow them to participate on social networking sites in the first place” (thenewsleak.com).

There is no question that Lori Drew’s alleged behavior is sick and twisted, and that it is deserving of condemnation. Megan Meier’s parents will doubtless pursue a civil case against her, as they should. As sad as this case is, though, Megan Meier should not be held up as a poster child for a loss of internet privacy; rather, her case should serve as a reminder to all concerned that what you (and your children) see on the internet isn’t always what you get.

Sources: CNN.com, blog.wired.com, usdoj.gov, thenewsleak.com